That might be reasonable for the wealthier families who are moving into the neighborhood and driving up the land values. But it's pushing her into poverty.
No, its pushing her into a cash flow problem. Its not poverty; she has substantial wealth, but its all in the house.
There are mechanisms, of course, to access that wealth without moving, including ones specifically geared toward income-limited house-rich retirees.
Now, those end up creating a debt that must be resolved before transferring the house, including via estate, so living on the value of the home reduces its utility as a vehicle for generational wealth, but...unless you want to reproduce California’s system which makes it much harder for people to become homeowners while rewarding those who already have, eapecially the wealthiest, making the rich richer and what would be the comfirtable middle class anywhere else in the country poor, that’s the way it works (and your exact scenario was the major sales pitch that was used to sell the California system; its maybe understadable how people without 50 years of California’s example fell for it then, but...)
It exempts you from "excess levies" (basically levies that are voted on) and some statewide levies and freezes your taxable assessed value. If your disposable income is low enough it also starts excluding part of your assessed value from taxation.
Why are we trying to take houses away from homeowners? Many who have lived in their homes for twenty years or more. What services that the city has could be so important to push residents out of the homes they've lived in all their lives? Most of it is inefficient pork on admin and roles the people living there didn't choose to hire for.
Build more. Encourage building multifamily. Pay to buy these homeowners out of their single family and convert the land to multifamily. If you can't pay, don't try to make it up with tax increases. That forces people out.
Deregulate and build.
Maybe a city failing to stretch services will send new residents seeking other cities, which would be healthier anyway.
In my city and others our city council delivers large grants to non-profits and other entities under various auspices. “Defending gay rights” is one, or maybe helping the homeless or something. Of course I support both causes in general, but if the city gives a million dollars away maybe we just have to have some people kicked out of their homes to pay for these programs?
You can say well we will just raise taxes on the wealthy. Sure yea, whatever but that isn’t a viable long term strategy for places outside of California or New York which have an ability to capture wealth better due to intrisinic location value. There are only so many “rich” people. Could I afford another $10,000 in city taxes? Yea. I won’t be able to go out to eat or shop at local business as much though. So then what happens? Do those businesses go under? Raise prices? What about their property tax? Maybe instead I sell and take a loss on the house and the market value goes down so now that home pays less in taxes (depending on how this stuff is measured in a given jurisdiction).
> Maybe a city failing to stretch services will send new residents seeking other cities, which would be healthier anyway.
Yea. Tell Google and Meta and whoever to stop putting more jobs in the “cool” cities and come to Ohio where I live instead of these data centers.
This stuff is rather complicated, unfortunately. Even the case of a city let’s say “building affordable housing” is arguably a benefit to the local homeowners, but if you do that yea sorry Granny McPension has to pay for it too - she has a house, she’s wealthy!
Probably less.
And probably irrelevant to the people that already live there.
So probably the taxes should be lowered then and then grandma doesn’t need to be kicked out. Everyone wins
But that's what the market is already doing? In your example from above, you can take a $400,000 windfall and move somewhere else, or take out a mortgage against that $400,000 of new equity to pay your taxes and still come out waaaaay ahead. I don't understand your characterization of a second mortgage as "taking the house away" at all.
If it's not, then I would also like to live in a nice neighborhood for $100k and zero property tax, please.
On the other hand, if it is, then this person has a substantial economic asset that she could reverse mortgage, rent out, or sell.
Especially not when you're getting older, have limited ability to manage a move for yourself, built a life and raised your kids in the building, and would have to consider unloading a lifetime's worth of objects and/or moving infeasibly far away from your friends and community to get into a living situation that's more financially tenable.
> Especially not when you're getting older
Houses are wealth. And the wealth in them can be accessed while retaining use of the house. Especially when you are getting older.
Why are we replaying the dishonest “think of the retirees” now? It was bullshit in California in 1978 to sell Prop 13, and its even bigger (and more transparent) bullshit now when, especially when it is used to sell the same basic idea.
And where would she move to? All decent areas probably also increased in price, her property went up 10x in value but so did all other properties she would contemplate to buy. That’s the fallacy of thinking property is wealth when talking about your only residence.
What a morally bankrupt viewpoint.
Claiming that the retiree has a right to both the home value and the ability to live there is the friction point. It reads as hollow in the face of rising homelessness and the inability for young people and families to access housing.
I think if we had a totally different culture, with multigenerational families living in the same house, then this might work better. But this model where we build new family friendly neighborhoods with parks and schools, and then nearly everyone ages in place and all the family amenities become empty over time, and the families all end up in the next new neighborhood and then it repeats, this doesn't seem ideal to me.
It's OK that they don't last forever; they're schools, not irreplaceable shrines.
And speaking of things that also don't last forever: Homeowners. Grandma Sally isn't going to live forever. The house winds up on the open market in order to seek satisfaction of Grandma's debts, and then some new family buys it at market price and is free to breed a whole new fleet of kids to raise there.
There's still eventually churn in the marketplace, and in the neighborhood. The churn didn't disappear just because Grandma Sally was able to choose to keep living in the same place until she died quietly of an agonizingly painful heart attack as she stood in the kitchen making tomato sauce after church on a Sunday morning before the family dinner that afternoon.
People die all the time. It's often tragic, but it's natural and ultimately unavoidable.
People also get forced out their forever-homes all the time, too. That's also often tragic, but it happens for artificial reasons that could be avoided if we bothered with trying to do so.
That seems a bit ironic?
> Grandma Sally isn't going to live forever. The house winds up on the open market in order to seek satisfaction of Grandma's debts
Not always, grandma can pass the home down to whoever. IIRC there are ways to do it without triggering a reevaluation on the original purchase price.
Anyway, Grandma is as dead as that Sunday dinner. She won't care that the new occupants are being complete heathens about smoking dope and makin' babies on the sofa.
> Houses are wealth. And the wealth in them can be accessed while retaining use of the house. Especially when you are getting older.
Simple example. I bought the house at $100k. It's now worth $500k. That means I owe $20k/yr in taxes, but it also means I have $400k of additional wealth. A bank will lend me money with that wealth as collateral. If you imagine that the interest on the loan is roughly equivalent to the rate of appreciation of the property going forward, that's 20 years of taxes paid for by the increase in home value. Seems like a pretty good deal for everyone!
"And where would she move to?" -- Either the graveyard or the incinerator? She's dead... the bill doesn't come due until after her death and is settled from the value of the house.
I don’t want my country to force old people to either move from their home, or take out risky debt.
There are absolutely problems and prop 13 has been awful for California but it’s a red herring to worry about the primary residence exceptions.
Perhaps the retired person is living on a fixed income of $40k/year. Over time their proterty taxes on the home that they have lived in for decades can now be more than half of their total income? How is this fair at any level?
> How is this fair at any level?
How is it fair that working people have to pay 10x for housing than she did when she was young? How is it fair that the money goes to her inheritance while she made her working neighbors pay her share of taxes?
Where I live, we are looking at locking property taxes once you hit a specified age (65) and have under a specified income ($40k+/-). The current debates revolve around exactly what those numbers are and at what level the taxes get locked. The goal is to protect the elderly who have already contributed to the economy and society for 40+ years and not force them into a financial situation forcing them to sell their home just to pay even more property taxes that they have paid for the entire ownership.
Oregon has a deferral where the delayed property tax comes from the value of the house when it is sold or I guess when you die. https://grantsforseniors.org/property-tax-relief-for-seniors....
Washington has a similar thing.
"All Washington counties offer senior citizens and disabled households property tax exemptions. Eligibility is based on your age or disability status, home ownership, residency in Washington, and income level. Seniors who are at least age 61, or retired from regular gainful employment by reason of a disability, with an income of $64,000 or less are eligible."
The idea is to help people stay in their houses. This is really really important. And if you can afford it, you should be paying property taxes. I'm lucky I can afford mine, but I highly support this strategy.
In my state I occasionally see people in online discussions saying they can't afford their property taxes - I think a lot of people aren't aware of these programs, people are amazed when I post a few pointers and tell them about it.
Quite the opposite.
Telling people that the solution is to sell their home to an insurance company as a solution is most certainly a corporate land grab.
You seem to be arguing about people/corporations that own multiple homes or even entire portfolios of property. These are not the same argument.
If their asset is gaining in price so much that the tax burden is getting high, then tax deferement until a liquidity event both keeps them in their home, but also keeps them honest about how much they are taking away from the rest of society by taking that piece of land.
The premise does not warrant this conclusion.
People’s primary residences are more than just an economic asset. If you don’t understand that, it’s difficult to have a conversation as we have very different starting points about morality.
I also don’t buy 20K of property tax on a 500K home, that’s a 4% tax which seems unlikely in Chicago.
Something isn’t right. Poor financial planning maybe?
Sometimes it works out and it's fine. It's not all the scam. But there are no scams out there that I would not have any confidence in working out. And as a government (which as a voter I'm part of), I certainly would refuse because there are too many ways that I can lose.
Now, apartments can suck too. Especially in places like the USA where we have a landlord cartel actively pushing up prices, and a professional landlord president who shut down an antitrust investigation into said cartel shortly after entering office.
I certainly can't say I have all the answers here; right now housing sucks every way you look at it. But I do believe quite firmly that this idea that going very deeply into debt and securing it with the actual roof over your head is somehow good for a person's financial security is an idea that mostly serves the interests of people who earn a commission on convincing people to get into that situation.
'Tis better than to have owned and lost, than to have never owned at all.
> Now, apartments can suck too. Especially in places like the USA where we have a landlord cartel actively pushing up prices, and a professional landlord president who shut down an antitrust investigation into said cartel shortly after entering office.
So rather than ever own a home, just rent. It's about the same as taking a pile of money out into the middle of the street every month and setting it on fire, but what else can a person do?
Die?
While not all stories are like that, many are (in fact most are).
Note that I'm very against cash out refinancing, which a lot of people are doing to get the cash that the house is worth. In my opinion the best reason to have a house is in 30 years it's paid off and now you can live there rent free for the rest of your life.
I am a fairly recent homeowner. Before that I lived in an apartment in the same neighborhood. I like owning the house and having control over the space. I like having a bit more space. But, after I add up home loan interest, taxes, homeowner's insurance, higher utility bills, maintenance, etc., the amount of money that I will definitely never see again adds up to quite a bit more than I was paying to live in an apartment that, square footage aside, was aesthetically much nicer and better situated than the house.
And then, yeah, some additional amount goes to equity in an "investment" that is less liquid and historically earns a lower rate than a decent index fund.
Every day, thousands of folks do emerge from that tunnel and gain the ability to make profound statements like "Well, at least the house is paid for."
This is in stark contrast to renting, wherein: There is absolute certainty that none of the money spent towards having a place to live will ever be returned. It doesn't matter how much is spent: Whether a little, a lot, or a lot more, that money is always just unilaterally gone. There's no chance at all of anything else happening. The odds of winning are nonexistent. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, and there never can be -- it's just inescapable darkness in there.
If you include opportunity cost into the decision, then your contrast can and often will disappear (i.e. renting is financially superior or "winning" in your terminology).
Also, is this an AI comment? Because it's surely poetic about something that doesn't call for it.
When I find these kinds of phrases to be directed my way, it is my most charitable interpretation that it is impossible for anything to be gained from the conversation.
Thanks for bringing this up! We're done here.
So your landlord was renting your apartment to you at a loss?
But it's also probable that the loan is fixed at a lower rate than you can get now, the maintenance costs less if you put a few people on salary vs hiring them for one off repairs, and the utility bills are lower because it's a smaller space.
As a general rule of thumb, the break-even comes out to be about seven years. It can be as bad as 15 years if you get unlucky and when you buy it what the economy does, but by 30 years it is almost guaranteed you are overall money head buying a house.
Although I do have to point out that I did not consider other investment options. If you take an apartment for cheap rent and then invest the difference between what a house payment would be including all that insurance and taxes versus your apartment and apartment insurance (less buy important) - and invest the difference in stocks, that is going to change your financial situation. All those equal that expect to be equal over in the long run. Since by investing, you are investing less money. However, just to make things tricky, in the U.S., we can invest up to a certain maximum in a 401k or IRA, both of which are going to be much better because of taxes, but it doesn't matter if you have an apartment or you have a house, you're at the same maximum. And so someone with a house can get that advantage of that and their future rent is paid for while someone with an apartment is still going to be pay for that apartment all their life.
There's a few other assumptions above. I'm assuming you're relatively young and you're going to live a relatively long life in the same area. Moving houses that's going to change things, apartments are much easier to move. Be the umlucky person who dies young: you won't get to take advantage of either investment.
Overall apartments and houses can both be good things and you need to examine the situation for your own life. Life includes your future, which is of course unknown. Good luck.
Anyone who claims there is a universal answer for everyone is categorically, utterly wrong.
Except you have to live somewhere, it's not like buying a boat. All of these dangers apply equally to owners and renters. Yet the protection you get from owning in that situation is massively advantaged over renting. Lose your job and can't afford your mortgage? Oh no, guess I'll have to take out a HELOC, or apply for forbearance, then wait years to be foreclosed on and declare bankruptcy. Lose your job and can't afford your rent? Sheriff's knocking on the door in 90 days to throw you on the street.
That doesn’t seem too bad, until you see all of her other costs have gone up dramatically because inflation has been high post pandemic. She only has so much money to spend every month, and if her property taxes kept going up too, she’d eventually be unable to afford to live in her house. She only owns her home because she was worried about being secure later in life and prioritized it above things like vacations or cars.
For a lot of folks as they age, even if they’re frugal, it’s not easy to survive. If you live for 20-30 years after retirement you’re likely to have your buying power cut by half if not more.
With that said, if someone’s home is worth more than say 10x the average price in your area, or your assets are $10+ million[1], I think there’s room for increased taxation. My primary point was simply being a property isn’t necessarily the right measure to determine a reasonable tax rate.
[1] The number obviously depends on where someone lives. Living in New York or SF, $10 million dollars of assets would be an extremely comfortable life but most likely not a lavish lifestyle. But… $10 million dollars in rural Mississippi is going to have you living an extremely lavish lifestyle.
The only fair thing to do is to allow some portion of the taxes into a lien that is paid out when the he is sold.
It's extremely unfair to reward excess wealth to the wealthy people of a community, while everyone else is struggling just to find a place to live.
Not only is it unfair, but it skews financial incentives and results in very poor politics for improving the unfair housing situation.
By your logic anyone who is retired and has an asset appreciate should immediately sell it, and be forced to move somewhere else.
I cannot afford a home in Portland where I live. I could probably make the mortgage but it’s too risky in my opinion to have a 30 year debt obligation. None of my friends own their own home, not a single one. We’ve all just entered our 40s. The lack of somewhere to live won’t be fixed by a lien, nor will liens on an individuals actual home due at death fix it. It will absolutely incentivize investors who can exploit that, who will pay the liens and add to their portfolio.
If we want more housing at better prices we need to encourage development of more housing. That means making cities more dense and removing NIMBY policies which prevent it. Sure some of these homeowners may be voting for those policies, but they are the minority in larger cities.
The wealth gains far outpace any potential tax increase. They just don't get to keep excess wealth that comes from keeping others out of the area.
Apart from the US, there aren't may other countries that allow fixed rate mortgages, and not a 30-year fixed.