NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[Zorba]

The local governments set the tax rate. They are free to drop the tax rate on the appraised value to whatever the local community wants. They should just have to tax all homes at the same rate of the appraised value. Why should one person pay a lower effective tax rate on their home simply because they've lived there longer? If real estate values are sky rocketing, they already benefited over a new person trying to afford to move into the neighborhood. Why should they get a lower effective tax rate in addition.

Already explained. Housing stability has many benefits. Housing instability causes a lot of problems. Unconstrained growth of wealth taxes on unrealized gains for middle class people would create housing instability.

Prop 13 needs a major overhaul though. And, as I've said, constraints on growth should only apply to occupied primary residences.

 

[mect]

Already explained. Housing stability has many benefits. Housing instability causes a lot of problems. Unconstrained growth of wealth taxes on unrealized gains for middle class people would create housing instability.

Prop 13 needs a major overhaul though. And, as I've said, constraints on growth should only apply to occupied primary residences.

Housing stability has benefits. There are ways to achieve that without making people new to a location pay a higher effective tax rate than people that have lived there longer.

Edit: And maybe I misunderstood your original post on the topic. For example, if you are proposing capping increases in tax rates, that is fine as long as you cap the increases for everyone, including when a home changes owners. As long as people just moving in get the same tax rate and relative appraisal value compared to those that have lived there for decades, then I think it is a reasonable approach.

 

[fskimospy]

Housing stability has benefits. There are ways to achieve that without making people new to a location pay a higher effective tax rate than people that have lived there longer.

Right, you would think the fundamental unfairness and bad public policy of two people with an identical asset paying vastly different property taxes on that asset would be clear.

I'm not aware of any other assets we have that operate like that other than I guess capital gains taxes, but that difference is capped at 1 year so...meh.

 

[Zorba]

Right, you would think the fundamental unfairness and bad public policy of two people with an identical asset paying vastly different property taxes on that asset would be clear.

I'm not aware of any other assets we have that operate like that other than I guess capital gains taxes, but that difference is capped at 1 year so...meh.

What other assests have wealth tax on them? Especially wealth tax that can grow at unconstrained rates?

 

[mect]

What other assests have wealth tax on them? Especially wealth tax that can grow at unconstrained rates?

If you want to argue for the elimination of property taxes on a primary residence, I can agree with that (up to a certain value). What I'm opposed to is one level of wealth tax for individuals who have lived in a neighborhood for decades and a higher one for those that are just moving in.

 

[fskimospy]

What other assests have wealth tax on them? Especially wealth tax that can grow at unconstrained rates?

That's an argument against property taxes, not an argument for taxing two people with an identical asset at different rates. If we're taxing property let's tax property, let's not tax time of residence.

Fundamentally prop 13 is telling us to look at two people, one who has seen their house price double and therefore has huge amounts of equity and one person who has little to no equity and tell us that the person with tons of equity really needs a tax break. This is not a good system.

 

[Zorba]

Housing stability has benefits. There are ways to achieve that without making people new to a location pay a higher effective tax rate than people that have lived there longer.

Should those people also have to reprice their house every year too?

Basically when you buy in you are saying you can afford the current price and tax situation. That doesn't mean you could afford very rapid growth in taxes over multiple years though, thus forcing you to move.

Your plan is basically to force out retirees and working class families to make way for wealthier people.

Further, we have many "unfair" tax policies. Why should you get a tax break because: you have kids, you are blind, you have high local taxes, you have high state taxes, you paid for education or student loans, bought an electric car, held stock longer than a year, funded a retirement account, had high medical bills, pay high interest on your house, etc. So if you want to play the fairness game we've got a lot to discuss, but just like most of those tax breaks there are obvious benefits to housing stability.

 

[fskimospy]

Should those people also have to reprice their house every year too?

Basically when you buy in you are saying you can afford the current price and tax situation. That doesn't mean you could afford very rapid growth in taxes over multiple years though, thus forcing you to move.

Your plan is basically to force out retirees and working class families to make way for wealthier people.

It's unlikely the new people moving in are wealthier - they just bought a super expensive new house that they have limited equity in while the other people have seen a huge wealth windfall. They likely have higher incomes though, yes, of course a lot of that will be eaten up by their increased mortgage costs.

It will be the case where property taxes for some would rise enough that they would need to sell their house... at which point they would reap an enormous financial windfall that will likely be entirely tax free.

Further, we have many "unfair" tax policies. Why should you get a tax break because: you have kids, you are blind, you have high local taxes, you have high state taxes, you paid for education or student loans, bought an electric car, held stock longer than a year, funded a retirement account, had high medical bills, pay high interest on your house, etc. So if you want to play the fairness game we've got a lot to discuss, but just like most of those tax breaks there are obvious benefits to housing stability.

If you'll notice nearly all of these are people undertaking extra expenses for things society deems beneficial like having kids, funding retirement, or going to college. I don't think there's any particular reason at all for society to incentivize staying in the same house for a long period of time. If anything you want to incentivize mobility so prop 13 is actively harmful.

 

[Brainonska511]

It will be the case where property taxes for some would rise enough that they would need to sell their house... at which point they would reap an enormous financial windfall that will likely be entirely tax free.

I would point out that another feature of arbitrary cost controls that shift costs onto newer residents of a neighborhood is that it probably discourages people from downsizing their homes. You see this a lot with rent stabilization and rent control: why move from the 3 bedroom to a 1 bedroom after your kids move out of it will cost you the same or more?

 

[fskimospy]

I would point out that another feature of arbitrary cost controls that shift costs onto newer residents of a neighborhood is that it probably discourages people from downsizing their homes. You see this a lot with rent stabilization and rent control: why move from the 3 bedroom to a 1 bedroom after your kids move out of it will cost you the same or more?

Exactly, a guy at the bar by my house has lived in the same apartment for his entire life because he inherited the rent control from his mom, who had also lived there forever. He says it's not a great apartment and some part of him would really like to move somewhere nicer but he just can't justify it because he pays something like $400 a month in a neighborhood where even a crummy 1 bedroom is $2k+.

This is not a triumph of public policy where the law kept a working class guy in his apartment, he's a retired cop and could easily afford a place at market rates, it's a policy failure because it's keeping a guy who doesn't really like his home that much from ever moving because the financial benefits of sitting there forever are so high.

 

[MrSquished]

That is ridiculous. I think actual primary living locations should be protected against massive increases in valuation year over year, but should still increase at a reasonable rate.

I also think unlived in property (vacation homes, etc) should be taxed to the moon.

This is a very reasonable compromise.

 

[mect]

Should those people also have to reprice their house every year too?

Basically when you buy in you are saying you can afford the current price and tax situation. That doesn't mean you could afford very rapid growth in taxes over multiple years though, thus forcing you to move.

Your plan is basically to force out retirees and working class families to make way for wealthier people.

Further, we have many "unfair" tax policies. Why should you get a tax break because: you have kids, you are blind, you have high local taxes, you have high state taxes, you paid for education or student loans, bought an electric car, held stock longer than a year, funded a retirement account, had high medical bills, pay high interest on your house, etc. So if you want to play the fairness game we've got a lot to discuss, but just like most of those tax breaks there are obvious benefits to housing stability.

No, my plan is not to force out retirees and working class families. My plan is to allow working class families to be able to afford a home.

While we may have many "unfair" tax policies (although most of the examples you give are not examples of unfair tax policies), that is hardly an excuse for promoting them. We should be aiming to fix unfair tax policies, not justifying them based on other unfair tax policies.

If people can't afford massive increases in taxes, then don't have massive increases in taxes. Seriously, its not that hard. But don't make the new family that just had a child and is trying to afford their first home pay the full tax rate while the family that has lived there for 20 years gets off paying far less. Your plan encourages communities to keep out new housing because the locals don't care how high housing prices get. If the tax rates are too much for the locals, they are also too much for the new families trying to move in.

 

[Zorba]

It's unlikely the new people moving in are wealthier - they just bought a super expensive new house that they have limited equity in while the other people have seen a huge wealth windfall. They likely have higher incomes though, yes, of course a lot of that will be eaten up by their increased mortgage costs.

It will be the case where property taxes for some would rise enough that they would need to sell their house... at which point they would reap an enormous financial windfall that will likely be entirely tax free.


If you'll notice nearly all of these are people undertaking extra expenses for things society deems beneficial like having kids, funding retirement, or going to college. I don't think there's any particular reason at all for society to incentivize staying in the same house for a long period of time. If anything you want to incentivize mobility so prop 13 is actively harmful.

You want to incentivize people not having roots in the community? Incentivize kids not having stability or long term friendships? Saving for retirement is about as similar to maintaining a house as you can get.

 

[mect]

You want to incentivize prior not having roots in the community? Incentivize kids not having stability or long term friendships? Saving for retirement is about as similar to maintaining a house as you can get.

You can move and still have roots in a community. At least if moving to a new house in the community doesn't make your property taxes sky rocket. I am advocating policies that would allow people to move to a more suitable housing situation AND remain in the same community. Right now, the only option for a lot of people that want to move into more reasonable housing is to either just continue living in housing that isn't appropriate for that stage in life or leave the community entirely because they'll lose their preferred tax status.

If everyone in the community paid equitable taxes, they could sell their old home that is too big or too small and buy a more appropriate home in the same neighborhood. For many people right now, this simply isn't an option. You seem to be under the misapprehension that leveling the taxation rate would mean everyone would pay ridiculously high taxes. I don't think that wouldn't be the case. If the locals who typically control all the levers of local governments are required to pay taxes at the same rate as people moving in, don't you think they would adjust policy to make it so they could continue to afford to live there? Or do you think they would keep property taxes high and price themselves (or their constituents) right out of a home?

The way you want to maintain tax structures is right now leading to cities that can't get basic public servants like teachers, fire fighters, etc because they can't afford to live anywhere near the cities where they work. The problem is only going to get worse because the only teachers that can afford to live in these areas are the teachers that moved there decades ago and are living with the decreased tax rates. As these teachers retire, the new teachers can't afford to live there. Speaking of communities, this leads to police officers policing in areas where they aren't a part of the community, teachers teaching in areas where they aren't a part of the community, and the overall gentrification of communities.

 

[fskimospy]

You want to incentivize prior not having roots in the community? Incentivize kids not having stability or long term friendships? Saving for retirement is about as similar to maintaining a house as you can get.

Huh? No of course not, where would you get that idea?

I want to make it easier for people to move if they want to move. Things like prop 13 and rent control make it so that even people who want to move may feel it’s impossible because of tax or rent benefits. As another example my wife’s dad owns a five bedroom house in San Diego and their last kid moved out more than 10 years ago. They use at most two of the five bedrooms and the rest sit empty.

So now we have three empty bedrooms in a city desperate for housing because California decided to give a large, ongoing tax subsidy to someone worth well over $3 million while the streets are clogged with the homeless. As mect mentions they don’t want to move out of San Diego, they just want to move to a smaller, more manageable place. They never will though and the rest of the residents pay the price.

 

[Zorba]

No, my plan is not to force out retirees and working class families. My plan is to allow working class families to be able to afford a home.

While we may have many "unfair" tax policies (although most of the examples you give are not examples of unfair tax policies), that is hardly an excuse for promoting them. We should be aiming to fix unfair tax policies, not justifying them based on other unfair tax policies.

If people can't afford massive increases in taxes, then don't have massive increases in taxes. Seriously, its not that hard. But don't make the new family that just had a child and is trying to afford their first home pay the full tax rate while the family that has lived there for 20 years gets off paying far less. Your plan encourages communities to keep out new housing because the locals don't care how high housing prices get. If the tax rates are too much for the locals, they are also too much for the new families trying to move in.

Every single one of the tax breaks I pointed out are examples of some people paying less than others. Ultimately they are all there because there are greater benefits to society to encourage certain behaviors. Allowing people to be stable is also a benefit.

I am fine if you cap the tax revenue increase as well, but that creates it's own set of problems and would be hard to implement for just homeowners.

My plan, also known as how many states handle property taxes, still increases taxes every year it just limits the rate of growth.

 

[MrSquished]

You can move and still have roots in a community. At least if moving to a new house in the community doesn't make your property taxes sky rocket. I am advocating policies that would allow people to move to a more suitable housing situation AND remain in the same community. Right now, the only option for a lot of people that want to move into more reasonable housing is to either just continue living in housing that isn't appropriate for that stage in life or leave the community entirely because they'll lose their preferred tax status.

If everyone in the community paid equitable taxes, they could sell their old home that is too big or too small and buy a more appropriate home in the same neighborhood. For many people right now, this simply isn't an option. You seem to be under the misapprehension that leveling the taxation rate would mean everyone would pay ridiculously high taxes. I don't think that wouldn't be the case. If the locals who typically control all the levers of local governments are required to pay taxes at the same rate as people moving in, don't you think they would adjust policy to make it so they could continue to afford to live there? Or do you think they would keep property taxes high and price themselves (or their constituents) right out of a home?

The way you want to maintain tax structures is right now leading to cities that can't get basic public servants like teachers, fire fighters, etc because they can't afford to live anywhere near the cities where they work. The problem is only going to get worse because the only teachers that can afford to live in these areas are the teachers that moved there decades ago and are living with the decreased tax rates. As these teachers retire, the new teachers can't afford to live there. Speaking of communities, this leads to police officers policing in areas where they aren't a part of the community, teachers teaching in areas where they aren't a part of the community, and the overall gentrification of communities.

It's not unreasonable to put some sort of cap on property tax increases without keeping something as ridiculous as Prop 13 in place. That is a reasonable compromise. Prop 13 is crazy, but there should be at least some reasonable cap from gigantic swings in property taxes.

 

[Moonbeam]

The local governments set the tax rate. They are free to drop the tax rate on the appraised value to whatever the local community wants. They should just have to tax all homes at the same rate of the appraised value. Why should one person pay a lower effective tax rate on their home simply because they've lived there longer? If real estate values are sky rocketing, they already benefited over a new person trying to afford to move into the neighborhood. Why should they get a lower effective tax rate in addition.

You also favor a flat income tax I presume.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's an argument against property taxes, not an argument for taxing two people with an identical asset at different rates. If we're taxing property let's tax property, let's not tax time of residence.

Fundamentally prop 13 is telling us to look at two people, one who has seen their house price double and therefore has huge amounts of equity and one person who has little to no equity and tell us that the person with tons of equity really needs a tax break. This is not a good system.

No, let’s fix tax rates at ability to pay at time of purchase and eliminate their tax burden when they fall on hard times as well as provide mortgage insurance for disability or job loss as well as provide tax incentives for corporate onsite housing for employees. Also outlaw rental property that returns no equity to renters and house flipping.

Just think how much unfair it is to tax the wealthy at a higher rate while people below a certain income pay no tax at all. Such awful entitlement.

 

[fskimospy]

No, let’s fix tax rates at ability to pay at time of purchase and eliminate their tax burden when they fall on hard times as well as provide mortgage insurance for disability or job loss as well as provide tax incentives for corporate onsite housing for employees. Also outlaw rental property that returns no equity to renters and house flipping.

Just think how much unfair it is to tax the wealthy at a higher rate while people below a certain income pay no tax at all. Such awful entitlement.

That sounds like a great incentive for housing prices to go to the moon because all that matters is your ability to get a mortgage and if later you can’t pay, it’s on the house.

This is a recipe for even more mass human suffering than your old proposals. For the sake of humanity stop trying to help, you’re killing people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Exactly, a guy at the bar by my house has lived in the same apartment for his entire life because he inherited the rent control from his mom, who had also lived there forever. He says it's not a great apartment and some part of him would really like to move somewhere nicer but he just can't justify it because he pays something like $400 a month in a neighborhood where even a crummy 1 bedroom is $2k+.

This is not a triumph of public policy where the law kept a working class guy in his apartment, he's a retired cop and could easily afford a place at market rates, it's a policy failure because it's keeping a guy who doesn't really like his home that much from ever moving because the financial benefits of sittings there forever are so high.

But he is free to move if he wants to. The important thing is that he has made a choice. You want to free him from not choosing to live somewhere you think he would really rather not be by removing his terrible self centered choice. You know what is really best for him.

 

[mect]

It's not unreasonable to put some sort of cap on property tax increases without keeping something as ridiculous as Prop 13 in place. That is a reasonable compromise. Prop 13 is crazy, but there should be at least some reasonable cap from gigantic swings in property taxes.

I have no issue putting a cap on property tax increases. I'm only opposed if you don't also apply those caps when the property changes ownership.

 

[Moonbeam]

That sounds like a great incentive for housing prices to go to the moon because all that matters is your ability to get a mortgage and if later you can’t pay, it’s on the house.

This is a recipe for even more mass human suffering than your old proposals. For the sake of humanity stop trying to help, you’re killing people.

I’m still waiting for you to explain the technology I can use on my lot to reach the moon as my penthouse suite.

 

[fskimospy]

I’m still waiting for you to explain the technology I can use on my lot to reach the moon as my penthouse suite.

Let’s just start with you allowing people to add a floor or two. Sound good?

 

[mect]

Every single one of the tax breaks I pointed out are examples of some people paying less than others. Ultimately they are all there because there are greater benefits to society to encourage certain behaviors. Allowing people to be stable is also a benefit.

I am fine if you cap the tax revenue increase as well, but that creates it's own set of problems and would be hard to implement for just homeowners.

My plan, also known as how many states handle property taxes, still increases taxes every year it just limits the rate of growth.

Forcing people to stay in a home that doesn't fit their needs because they can't afford to pay the taxes if they purchase a more appropriate home is not a behavior we want to encourage. Why on earth would we want to encourage people with no children to stay in a 5 bedroom house because they can't afford to sell it and move into a 2 bedroom house due to losing their preferred tax status?

Where I live in Oregon, everyone just pays the same tax rate on their homes tax assessment value. The assessment value isn't the true assessment of the home, it is a reduced assessment to prevent taxes from skyrocketing like you are suggesting, and there is a maximum increase, but they are the same regardless of when the house is purchased. The only thing that can change the assessment rate is when you significantly modify the property.