Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should people be forced to get in debt to keep the house they've already paid for?
Why do they deserve permanently lower taxes?
They're taxed on what they paid.
How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
161–170 of 170 posts
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one has to sell, everyone has to pay property taxes. Why do you keep saying they are 'forced to sell' and that they shouldn't pay the same property taxes as others?
When you are retired you are on a fixed income. One advantage of buying a house over renting is that you don’t have to worry about increasing housing expenses besides usually small increases in property taxes and homeowners insurance. Of course, there is an unscientific rule of thumb that you should set 1% of the value of your home aside for repairs and maintenance (no one took into account the rapid rise of house pr…
It seems like everything you are saying boils down to moving being some sort of terrible atrocity and that people with millions of dollars in equity in their house are so poor they have to be protected.
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you are retired you are on a fixed income. One advantage of buying a house over renting is that you don’t have to worry about increasing housing expenses besides usually small increases in property taxes and homeowners insurance. Of course, there is an unscientific rule of thumb that you should set 1% of the value of your home aside for repairs and maintenance (no one took into account the rapid rise of house pr…
It seems like everything you are saying boils down to moving being some sort of terrible atrocity and that people with millions of dollars in equity in their house are so poor they have to be protected.
What if we had a wealth tax on equity grants where you had to pay tax based on the value of your equity in a privately held company? Would you like to be forced to sell your equity to pay taxes?
Would you like to have to pay taxes on your equity after every series of funding raises the paper value of your equity?
Or if you hold stock and don’t sell it, would you like to have to pay tax every time the value of your stock increases or when you sell it?
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unrealized She can borrow against it and easily afford property taxes for the rest of her life.
And then die me not pay back loans? Or what if there is a market downturn and now the lenders are stuck holding it? Maybe they don’t lend I’m the first place? Lots of unknowns here.
Yes: Buy. Borrow. Die. It's how the wealthy skip taxes in the US.
Or, if she is seriously so destitute and financially illiterate that this is all too hard there are targeted programs in California for her: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html
The fact is that Prop 13 is just a handout to successful land speculators at the expense of everyone else.
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unrealized She can borrow against it and easily afford property taxes for the rest of her life.
Unless she resorts to a reverse mortgage, it's surprisingly difficult to refi when you have no earned income. I have over 1M equity in my house but can't access it while unemployed (according to lenders I've contacted, including credit unions with whom I have 30+-year ties.)
Let's say property taxes are 2%. She's got a $1M house so thats $20k per year for the rest of her life. Is it really that hard to borrow $200k against a $1M house?
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing the "fee simple" notion of land tenure that we have in the United States with "allodial title" which doesn't happen anywhere anymore because it turns out that's a terrible way to run a society.
I'm not confusing anything, you just don't agree with my position.
> buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose)
That's simply not how it works in the United States. The government here is allowed to levy taxes on you for fencing off a portion of our land from other citizens.
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Further, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do if my home value doubles just because of natural reasons… On an individual level there isn’t too much I can do.… Maybe I sell my home to a developer who turns it into a mall or a 5 story apartment building.… And if I can’t afford it you force me out of my house, away from friends and family? I think what you said is somewhat contradictory. You said you don’t know what y…
Yes, you’re right I mentioned some things that you could do. Though I’d also like to point out that whether the policies are liberal or not is not very important to me, they are just natural reactions people will have. Restricting immigration or child rearing is a logical consequence, and it doesn’t make people bad. If you like things the way they are, you’ll protect against population explosions. One of the issues h…
> Though I’d also like to point out that whether the policies are liberal or not is not very important to me, they are just natural reactions people will have… Maybe it is fair. Maybe it isn’t
In my opinion, a liberal society with progressive taxation (including the property tax) tends to provide more opportunities for those who are born without assets than a society that overly protects the privileges of feudal estates (“passing on a home to your kids”), and would be a better society to live in behind a veil of ignorance.
> One of the issues here with doing something like building an apartment complex means now you have to live in the apartment or move your family and become a landlord
You can also build a condo building and own one of the condos instead of managing rentals.
> With respect to rent, I’m not sure. Maybe it makes more sense to tax rental income than the property
The problems with the income tax on rent are that 1) it penalizes renting out land while rewarding speculators who leave land vacant, and 2) it punishes renters who bear a higher burden than owner-occupiers who do not pay tax on the imputed rent (incidentally, the fact that imputed rent is excluded is basically a mistake of the original Form 1040; see Lawrence Zelenak, “The Early Income Tax and the Imputed Rental Income of Homeowners” https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108377157.008). The property tax is a fairer and less distortionary tax than an income tax on rent.
> If you’re a home owner a lot of this just seems like a bad idea. It makes more sense to maintain things how they are.
From a Bay Area resident to a Great Lakes resident, I hope people there heed the cautionary tale that is the Bay Area: maintaining the residential housing stock almost unchanged despite strong economic growth and agglomeration effects, and protecting property owners by discriminating against later generations, is an absolute disaster for lower income and even middle income households.
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like everything you are saying boils down to moving being some sort of terrible atrocity and that people with millions of dollars in equity in their house are so poor they have to be protected.
What if we had a wealth tax on equity grants where you had to pay tax based on the value of your equity in a privately held company? Would you like to be forced to sell your equity to pay taxes? Would you like to have to pay taxes on your equity after every series of funding raises the paper value of your equity? Or if you hold stock and don’t sell it, would you like to have to pay tax every time the value of your st…
That sounds like an interesting proposal but I don't know why we'd want to encourage people to sell their investments in companies. Long term investments in businesses help the economy grow. Fencing off land and not allowing other citizens access to it has several negative externalities (eg. what we're going through in California now).
http://www.landvaluetax.org/current-affairs-comment/winston-... says it better than I can
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if we had a wealth tax on equity grants where you had to pay tax based on the value of your equity in a privately held company? Would you like to be forced to sell your equity to pay taxes? Would you like to have to pay taxes on your equity after every series of funding raises the paper value of your equity? Or if you hold stock and don’t sell it, would you like to have to pay tax every time the value of your st…
That sounds like an interesting proposal but I don't know why we'd want to encourage people to sell their investments in companies. Long term investments in businesses help the economy grow. Fencing off land and not allowing other citizens access to it has several negative externalities (eg. what we're going through in California now). http://www.landvaluetax.org/current-affairs-comment/winston-... says it better tha…
From a tax policy standpoint it would be the same thing -- you're taxing wealth instead of capital gains. We don't do that for any other asset class.
But, if you're "investing" in a public company by buying stock, unless its at the IPO, the money isn't going to the company, it's going to someone else who owns the stock, the same could be said if you force people to sell private investments to other people.
No, I'm not proposing we tax wealth instead of income and capital gains.
I think it would actually be positive for other places in the country if companies decide to open offices outside of California to locations where everything is cheaper.
Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More Housing is no solution. That's compounding the issue at hand How so? > value adjustments for areas based on median income What do you mean value adjustments?
Adjustment of Home Values. If any given area is selling at levels higher than standard median income allows and that given area is experiencing a higher than average number of Foreclosures (or pick a reasonable threshold), requirements should be in place to ensure that if a home defaults, it doesn't go back to market at those same values, but lower. After all, if you go strictly by banks rules, housing costs shouldn'…
I'm not sure I understand. Firstly, banks can't offer their foreclosed assets as significantly less than market rate because homes are used as collateral in a mortgage, so they'd have to just stop offering mortgages, which means only cash buyers get homes
Secondly, even if a bank did offer the foreclosed homes much cheaper, it won't fix gentrification, it just means whenever a house gets foreclosed a bunch of cash buyers swoop in and flip a house back to market rate for a free profit (or realistically, hold a bidding war and end up paying close to market rate anyways)
It doesn't make logical sense suggesting a bank has any power to change market rate (whether that's an asset bubble or genuine demand)