no sympathy for people living in florida or any disaster prone area, that knowingly there is a chance that its expensive. just like the wildfires in california, where all the rich people were crying.
But they’re holding out hope that momentum around reform might arrive in time to help them stay in the home they’ve poured decades of love and savings into.
Yeah thats not going to happen
So you were house rich but they never reassessed meaning last year you paid 15k on a 3.9m home nicw
Yeah people bitching about the property tax they now have to pay after not paying it for a long time should probably stfu and take the L or W or whatever it is
That doesn't mean he can afford the taxes?
If you buy an affordable house somewhere and external developments drive the price up, it doesn't mean that you magically have the means to afford paying 5x as much for something you already own.
Sell it and live somewhere cheaper on your wealth. Oh nos the shitty market gave me 4 million dollars what ever shall I do!
Yeah because people love to be forced out of their homes. Does the amount of money really matter? It's gentrification, plain and simple.
People don’t see homes as a place to live, they don’t consider community, family, proximity to work as important. Homes are “investments” and being priced out of your home is “good” because you can “sell it and move somewhere cheaper”. The dominant ideas of any era are the ideas of the ruling class.
Yearly property taxes never made sense to me. So you supposedly bought and own something, except if you don't pay the government then they can just take it away.
Taxes are the price of civilization. You pay taxes on your land, because if you don't, a gang of armed thugs will come and steal it from you and bury you under it.
I see your point for general taxes, but if the federal and state government are already taking your income and many other things how come they're also taking so much in property tax? Many other countries seem to be able to protect you and give you what you need without property tax.
Because collecting only one type of taxes would cause massive economic distortion and would inevitably burden people unequally. Different taxes have different properties. Some hit certain groups harder than others. Some hit certain types of businesses harder than others. Far better to have a whole series of modest taxes than one form of ruinous taxation. Do some countries not have property taxes? Yes, but they're small tax havens that aren't really a good model for the vast majority of nations.
But as far as optimization, consider some examples.
Property taxes also work best at the local level because the spending needs of municipalities don't swing heavily with economic conditions. The federal government has spending needs that vary wildly with the economic cycle. During a recession, the federal government needs to massively ramp up its spending. But at a local level, a recession doesn't mean you suddenly need twice the number of firefighters. Property taxes are pretty steady over time, so they're a good match for the needs of local government. The federal government's income tax revenue goes down during a recession, but that's ultimately fine, as the federal government controls the currency. They can afford to sustain massive deficits during bad years and make it up with surpluses in the good years. (Well, if the federal government was functioning as designed.)
Income taxes also make more sense for government entities whose jurisdictions are difficult to avoid. If you fund your city entirely with income tax and no property taxes, you may find your community completely overrun by retirees who want services like anyone else, but don't actually earn much taxable income to pay for them. If you fund your city entirely through a large sales tax, people can just drive and shop outside of city limits. It's much harder for people to avoid federal income tax simply by moving house. Unless you're leaving the country entirely, you're not avoiding the reach of federal income taxes. (And sometimes even that doesn't cut it!)
But property taxes? The only way to avoid those is to not live in the city at all. Which, from the city's perspective, is fine. If you don't live in the city, then you're not putting much burden on the city's infrastructure and services. But if you want to live in the city and enjoy all the benefits that come with living in a city, you have to pay the city's property taxes.
In short, different taxes have different properties, different benefits and drawbacks. Funding a society through a diverse arrangement of taxes allows much more efficient optimization of these taxes. It's a much more intelligent system than just trying to fund it all with one big dumb tax of a single type. That's more the way of Medieval head taxes, not modern nation states. We used to have simple tax systems. We stopped using them because we realized there were better ways to do it.
Like almost every issue, property taxes aren't a binary issue - it's not a matter of either having them or not having them. There's the sub-issue of how the rates are set. Simply tying property taxes to home value isn't fair, because the burden a person puts on city services doesn't increase just because the perceived value of their home rises. You don't actually receive any of that value until you sell your house and leave, but you're taxed on it anyway. Being taxed when you sell the house would make perfect sense to me, because that's when you actually reap the benefits.
The argument that people in high-priced neighborhoods are rich and can afford or deserve to pay higher property taxes is unrealistic. Recent newcomers, yes, but not people who bought homes when they were still cheap because the area wasn't so desirable. Those people are no different from people who buy cheap houses today, they just did it a long time ago. But they get charged premium rates because the perceived value of their home increased. That way of assessing property taxes isn't fair, it's just bureaucratically easy.
I think property tax should be heavily weighted by the original price you paid for your house, and should go up with inflation and the cost of services. It should not be flatly tied to the price you would get for your house if you hypothetically sold it.
They are actually rich. They have earned in many cases more money in real estate than many people have earned working
Uhhh no... the value of your house is what somebody might buy it for IF YOU SOLD IT. Until you actually do sell it, you don't get that money or "make money in real estate". As I said, taxing you at the point where you sell the house would make sense to me - because that's when you're actually getting money. The way property taxes are now, people are being taxed on money they might hypothetically get in the future.
Now it's true that you can borrow against your home value - this is known as a home equity loan or a line of credit. So you potentially have that available - but even that is not "making money in real estate", it's borrowing money that you have to pay back.
Srsly, what grade are you in?
They are paying money based on wealth they can obtain at any time directly by selling. So if you pay $50k and end with a 4M home you can sell it and live on the millions of dollars.
What if the real estate market cools off and they never get their millions of dollars - do you think they should get a refund for all the years they paid the higher tax on the expectation of getting rich which never happened?
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world