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.
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.
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.
That is literally how every billionaire funds their lifestyle, just borrowing against stocks instead of home equity. If people with $4 million homes are not rich, then neither are most billionaires.
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.
That is how you end up with California, where the old generations get wealthy, and the young generations are driven out of the state completely.
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?
That is literally how every billionaire funds their lifestyle, just borrowing against stocks instead of home equity. If people with $4 million homes are not rich, then neither are most billionaires.
That is how you end up with California, where the old generations get wealthy, and the young generations are driven out of the state completely.
Yes, the economic conditions in a state with 40 million people are probably due to one specific factor. Classic meme-level thinking!
Prop 13 is real, yo
So are about a million other things that have happened in the 40 years since prop 13, yo.