4 ms·

Change the tax code to a "Colonizer's Locked In Rate" so that people who originally started or live in a town pay the same property tax as long as they stay in

Change the tax code to a "Colonizer's Locked In Rate" so that people who originally started or live in a town pay the same property tax as long as they stay in that town / city / zip code / within _ mile radius of their original home. ● That way original residents are not forced out. ● Low income residents can afford to stay without further special subsidies. Tax payers don't have to pay for low income housing. ● Residents will have the incentive to improve their communities without fear of it raising their taxes.

YokoZar 12y ago
They're not afraid of taxes, they're afraid of rents. Locking property tax rates is exactly what California does and it only makes housing supply worse by giving a very strong incentive for incumbents not to leave.
- ChrisNorstrom 12y ago
  I stand corrected. What's a realistic solution then? Acceptance that times change, cities change and nothing is permanent and any attempt to create permanency almost always comes with some kind of consequence?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Yes. Times change, communities change and if a middle class area or even a slum becomes a wealthy neighborhood that's not such a bad thing.
michaelochurch 12y ago
That is a horrible idea. California tried it ("Prop 13") and it made the NIMBY/takers-vs.-makers problem even worse. Property tax increases are minor compared to asset appreciation. If your house goes up from $300k to $500k and your property tax rate is a typical 1.25% per year, then you made $200k for doing absolutely nothing, but you're paying $2500 per year for it. If you don't like it, sell your house and make a clean $200k (ok, slightly less due to transaction costs) and downsize or move. What I would support is a law that allows retirees of low income to keep a locked-in property value, on the provision that the house must be offered for sale at that price upon the owner's death (and can't be handed down, though next of kin may bid on it). If there's competitive bidding, the government takes the excess. This would prevent low-income old people from being pushed out by property taxes; everyone else can either move or pay the higher taxes.

YokoZar 12y ago

They're not afraid of taxes, they're afraid of rents. Locking property tax rates is exactly what California does and it only makes housing supply worse by giving a very strong incentive for incumbents not to leave.

ChrisNorstrom 12y ago
I stand corrected. What's a realistic solution then? Acceptance that times change, cities change and nothing is permanent and any attempt to create permanency almost always comes with some kind of consequence?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Yes. Times change, communities change and if a middle class area or even a slum becomes a wealthy neighborhood that's not such a bad thing.

michaelochurch 12y ago

That is a horrible idea. California tried it ("Prop 13") and it made the NIMBY/takers-vs.-makers problem even worse. Property tax increases are minor compared to asset appreciation. If your house goes up from $300k to $500k and your property tax rate is a typical 1.25% per year, then you made $200k for doing absolutely nothing, but you're paying $2500 per year for it. If you don't like it, sell your house and make a clean $200k (ok, slightly less due to transaction costs) and downsize or move. What I would support is a law that allows retirees of low income to keep a locked-in property value, on the provision that the house must be offered for sale at that price upon the owner's death (and can't be handed down, though next of kin may bid on it). If there's competitive bidding, the government takes the excess. This would prevent low-income old people from being pushed out by property taxes; everyone else can either move or pay the higher taxes.