> 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.
Housing is a fungible good. I have friends and family living in squalor because people have decided sentiment is a valid reason to keep people in these four walls instead of those four walls.
I think people’s primary residence should not be seen as assets in the way they are today at all. The only reason they are is substantial government intervention.
Housing is also set up in a particular way. A McMansion is nothing like a 1BR apartment. A condo is nothing like a ranch-style SFH. The aforementioned mobile homes could never serve a family of 12 or be attached to a swimming pool. These are not interchangeable things! They are unlike a barrel of oil or a $100 bill, my dude!
It's true that nobody cares "who was there first", but property ownership confers real rights. The right to stay put, and the right to expel unwelcome people from your property. The right to defend it, or at least have the authorities defend your life and property within. Even renting tenants have rights, as long as their bills are current. It's not a matter of "who is here first" but God-given and gov-granted rights of occupation. In a less civilized place, your property rights would be defended with guns and violence, as against invasions.
Housing is, like, one of the least fungible commodities possible. I don't even know how you say that. How do you define fungible so that it includes housing? Pray tell! Inquiring minds want to know!