4 ms·

That's correct, it's not a right, but being free from having your primary and only residence confiscated because you're unable to pay a "property tax" (usually

That's correct, it's not a right, but being free from having your primary and only residence confiscated because you're unable to pay a "property tax" (usually due to a decreasing living standard) should be a right.

dllthomas 12y ago
My primary and only residence will be confiscated if I'm unable to pay a "rent".
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  It's different. If your home was previously paid for in full, then it's your private property. If I'm paying someone on a monthly basis to allow me to live in their residence, then it's obviously not mine. Asking someone to keep paying an annual tax on something that's: 1. completely theirs 2. essential to their life is a form of feudalism and serfdom and a flagrant violation of their right to be secure in their life, possessions and property. You can try to argue this as much as you want and invoke all sorts of broken analogies, but it is what it is.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You beg the question. That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.
    - VexXtreme 12y ago
      I agree. It all comes down to your personal belief system. If I believe that theft is wrong and immoral and you disagree, then we will never be able to reach common ground. Goodbye.
      - vinceguidry 12y ago
        If you're going to play silly semantic games like saying your discussion partner doesn't believe theft is wrong and immoral, then don't be surprised when people find you tedious to talk with.
  - csomar 12y ago
    Think about living in a house in a community like living in an apartment in a building. There are monthly costs related to the building syndicate so they can fix the building for you and keep the maintenance services. Same go for having a house. If you had a house in the middle of nowhere, then you might be right to complain.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - VexXtreme 12y ago
      Ok, let me present a simple scenario. Imagine the following: Initially you're doing well in life. You're making decent money at your tech job and you eventually end up buying a pretty nice house. Things are good for a while, but at some point you get old/sick and are unable to work anymore. You are able to survive on what you have and perhaps have a fairly decent life, but it's not a lot. You like the house where you live and you consider it yours. But for some reason, the price of real estate in your neighborhood skyrockets and the government reevaluates your tax liabilities based on the new valuation of your house. You used to have a pretty good life, but now you just can't afford the new property tax anymore and are forced to sell the property, move halfway across town and buy some dingy shack that you actually can afford. Question: is it fair of the government to evict you from the place that you fully own and where you lived for ages, because of someone's rent-seeking behavior and based on certain factors that are completely outside of your control? Are you telling me that you wouldn't feel even a little bit upset in that kind of scenario? edit: Also, I thought that downvoting is reserved for rude discourse and blatant violations of the HN rules, not if you disagree with someone's opinion. This place is becoming just like Reddit.
      - cardinalfang 12y ago
        It is a reasonable option. It also happens to be shared by those complaining about the effect of tech companies on the housing market, who don't seem terribly popular around here.
jacquesm 12y ago
Then you could sell it and buy a smaller property. Property taxes are used to service the immediate area around the property (typically the municipality where the residence is located) and whether you are old or young has relatively little to do with that (I do think that older people tend to have a lower impact on their surroundings so maybe for that reason they should be getting a discount). You could argue that it is a form of double taxation (since you've already paid for the property and that income was already taxed before you could use it).
- watwut 12y ago
  Of course. But, seniors also have harder time to settle on new place where they do not know anybody and do not have support network they need (e.g. people willing to help with small and big things when they need it). If you force them to move elsewhere, they are likely to end up completely isolated and it is much bigger problem for them then for younger person.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Yes, it definitely is a tragedy. On the other hand, plenty of soon-to-be-seniors downsize their housing voluntarily before this becomes a problem. The house you need at 50 when your kids have left is not the house that you needed at 30, it will likely be too big for two anyway. Traditionally people would move into a place in their mid 20's to early 30's and stay there until they either died or went into care but that is definitely changing. And property taxes are only a small factor in that, the cost of heating and maintaining (both in money and in labour) as well as walking stairs usually figure in there as well and possibly as larger factors.
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  Sorry I don't subscribe to communism. I believe in certain unalienable rights, and property ownership is one of them.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    It's not about your right to own your property, it is about your obligation to pay taxes owed on your property. That's nothing to do with communism.

dllthomas 12y ago

My primary and only residence will be confiscated if I'm unable to pay a "rent".

VexXtreme 12y ago
It's different. If your home was previously paid for in full, then it's your private property. If I'm paying someone on a monthly basis to allow me to live in their residence, then it's obviously not mine. Asking someone to keep paying an annual tax on something that's: 1. completely theirs 2. essential to their life is a form of feudalism and serfdom and a flagrant violation of their right to be secure in their life, possessions and property. You can try to argue this as much as you want and invoke all sorts of broken analogies, but it is what it is.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  You beg the question. That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.
  - VexXtreme 12y ago
    I agree. It all comes down to your personal belief system. If I believe that theft is wrong and immoral and you disagree, then we will never be able to reach common ground. Goodbye.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      If you're going to play silly semantic games like saying your discussion partner doesn't believe theft is wrong and immoral, then don't be surprised when people find you tedious to talk with.
- csomar 12y ago
  Think about living in a house in a community like living in an apartment in a building. There are monthly costs related to the building syndicate so they can fix the building for you and keep the maintenance services. Same go for having a house. If you had a house in the middle of nowhere, then you might be right to complain.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - VexXtreme 12y ago
    Ok, let me present a simple scenario. Imagine the following: Initially you're doing well in life. You're making decent money at your tech job and you eventually end up buying a pretty nice house. Things are good for a while, but at some point you get old/sick and are unable to work anymore. You are able to survive on what you have and perhaps have a fairly decent life, but it's not a lot. You like the house where you live and you consider it yours. But for some reason, the price of real estate in your neighborhood skyrockets and the government reevaluates your tax liabilities based on the new valuation of your house. You used to have a pretty good life, but now you just can't afford the new property tax anymore and are forced to sell the property, move halfway across town and buy some dingy shack that you actually can afford. Question: is it fair of the government to evict you from the place that you fully own and where you lived for ages, because of someone's rent-seeking behavior and based on certain factors that are completely outside of your control? Are you telling me that you wouldn't feel even a little bit upset in that kind of scenario? edit: Also, I thought that downvoting is reserved for rude discourse and blatant violations of the HN rules, not if you disagree with someone's opinion. This place is becoming just like Reddit.
    - cardinalfang 12y ago
      It is a reasonable option. It also happens to be shared by those complaining about the effect of tech companies on the housing market, who don't seem terribly popular around here.

jacquesm 12y ago

Then you could sell it and buy a smaller property. Property taxes are used to service the immediate area around the property (typically the municipality where the residence is located) and whether you are old or young has relatively little to do with that (I do think that older people tend to have a lower impact on their surroundings so maybe for that reason they should be getting a discount). You could argue that it is a form of double taxation (since you've already paid for the property and that income was already taxed before you could use it).

watwut 12y ago
Of course. But, seniors also have harder time to settle on new place where they do not know anybody and do not have support network they need (e.g. people willing to help with small and big things when they need it). If you force them to move elsewhere, they are likely to end up completely isolated and it is much bigger problem for them then for younger person.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Yes, it definitely is a tragedy. On the other hand, plenty of soon-to-be-seniors downsize their housing voluntarily before this becomes a problem. The house you need at 50 when your kids have left is not the house that you needed at 30, it will likely be too big for two anyway. Traditionally people would move into a place in their mid 20's to early 30's and stay there until they either died or went into care but that is definitely changing. And property taxes are only a small factor in that, the cost of heating and maintaining (both in money and in labour) as well as walking stairs usually figure in there as well and possibly as larger factors.
VexXtreme 12y ago
Sorry I don't subscribe to communism. I believe in certain unalienable rights, and property ownership is one of them.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It's not about your right to own your property, it is about your obligation to pay taxes owed on your property. That's nothing to do with communism.