Yes there is. You own a more valuable asset, so now even if you want to keep it you could take out a loan against it for a greater amount than if it hadn't appreciated.
replyYour statement is based on assumptions that just don't hold for many people. First and foremost, you imply a subjective utility of receiving a loan. For many people, having loans - especially collateralized against your home - has negative utility, not positive. Case in point: someone who'd need to take our a loan to pay the property tax.
replyBut even if you were right for the majority of home owners: feel free to tax collateralized homes as commercial property based on the volume of the mortgage. Case solved.
You mean take out a loan to pay for the increased taxes? The banks win with that one. Some people, especially as they age, are seeking out simplicity with their finances amongst everything else.
replyIt is basically the billionaire/ unrealized gains argument.
replyI can take a loan against or collateralized my home value.
I can have greater operational flexibility if I know I have a deep financial backup.
There is something to it, even if overstated
You're making a valid point, but not in favor of taxing owner-occupied homes, but in favor of treating collateralized homes as commercial property. I'd be okay with that as long as the basis for taxation is the volume of the mortgage.
replyOr just making property tax a requirement of leaving your property or accessing any government services and infrastructure
replyYeah that’s the Stalinist way of thinking. No, thanks.
reply