That sucks, but I also think the era of the single family home is ending. No regular person can afford these home prices. Even if you can afford a one time renovation on your $650,000 house does not mean you can afford a $90,000/year tax bill. Single family home values have gone off the charts and regular people cannot afford them. We need to increase housing supply.
So many people are cheering but these are exactly the sort of costs that will lock them out of housing or prevent them from improving a property.
They’re artificially high because concentrated wealth is buying up the supply. As of 2024 as much as 25% of the supply is being purchased by institutional investors in some markets
Spot on. Houses are cheap, though, but you’ll have to get something like sub 800 square feet and in the shitty part of town. A broken-down house for 120k isn’t the greatest investment unless you have a warchest or great job to improve it. Even then, you’ll be fighting comps around your house that aren’t improved.
Single income isn’t cutting it with anything of quality or merit. You’ll have a roof over your head, but the timer starts. Improve or take a loss down the road.
This is it, and it’s been happening for years. I had a new home built in 2021 and it’s already appreciated by 25%, and periodically been valued even higher than that. I’m not selling, but that still seems crazy to me.
Bonus points for the fact the newly built home and land purchase were about the same cost as it would have been to buy an old run down home in the area that would have needed a ton of work and updates. Few people seem to be building new housing, which in conjunction with the corporate housing acquisitions is driving prices way up.
That’s just scapegoating bullshit temporarily-embarrassed NIMBYs like to tell themselves to avoid the hard truth that we have to fix the zoning code.
The fact is, plenty of houses exist at reasonable prices in rural areas and small towns. But you don’t want to live in those places, do you? You want to live in a big metro area, just like everybody else. Well, when everybody wants to live in the same place you have to build enough housing units for them all to fucking fit in the same place, or you end up playing musical chairs and the ones who aren’t rich lose. That’s just a fact of geometry and basic supply and demand, not the diabolical machinations of some villain.
I actually do live in a somewhat rural area down the street from a dairy farm. I’m not in the Midwest though, I’m a dirty coastal elite in PA
Institutional investors invest in rural real estate as well. It’s calmed down a bit since 2021 when they were really aggressive but they see farmland as a stable investment
https://investigatemidwest.org/2025/03/12/farmland-values-lose-steam-after-years-of-rapid-growth/
I do agree that zoning needs to be fixed and suburbia needs to end though
Tbh, concentrated wealth wouldn’t be able to squeeze the market if there was a healthy supply. There’s a lot of issues with single family homes, but the tl;Dr is that they’re expensive because they are by FAR the least efficient way to house people, and it’s basically the only kind of housing that most cities allow by zoning area.
basically what happens when you create and support a housing system whose goal is to make profit. doesnt matter if you yourself plan on living in it, people voted for the system that approved the nonsense of longterm profiteering of a basic need.
Sure must be nice having a house to remodel.
Fuck off and sell the home. Why is this a sob story.
Only if you’re a boomer.
So you were house rich but they never reassessed meaning last year you paid 15k on a 3.9m home nicw
That doesn’t mean he can afford the taxes?
If you buy an affordable house somewhere and external developments drive the price up, it doesn’t mean that you magically have the means to afford paying 5x as much for something you already own.
Sell it and live somewhere cheaper on your wealth. Oh nos the shitty market gave me 4 million dollars what ever shall I do!
Yeah because people love to be forced out of their homes. Does the amount of money really matter? It’s gentrification, plain and simple.
People don’t see homes as a place to live, they don’t consider community, family, proximity to work as important. Homes are “investments” and being priced out of your home is “good” because you can “sell it and move somewhere cheaper”. The dominant ideas of any era are the ideas of the ruling class.
Yeah people bitching about the property tax they now have to pay after not paying it for a long time should probably stfu and take the L or W or whatever it is
It’s always funny when looking at the tax-system in the US from an EU perspective. Americans looking at any receipt they get in an EU country and immediately pointing out the huge VAT tariff.
Then one only needs to point to the property tax in the US.
Sales taxes are regressive. People who spend more money on services and less on goods are typically wealthier. Sales taxes hit the poor the hardest. Whereas the property tax on a multi unit building is typically a better rate for each family than a single family home.
If you read the article these people tried to abuse a loophole that had kept their propery taxes capped for years and they failed miserably. They tried to keep just enough of the home to avoid the value of the home being reassessed for taxes. But they added an entire second story and that triggered the reassessment. Essentially they thought they could cheat and build more home than they could afford to pay for.
Which country doesn’t charge VAT on services?
These states in the US have zero sales tax: NH, OR, AK, DE, MT
If you hire a nanny do you pay VAT?
Not sure over here in Germany. Plenty of services are exempted from VAT.
The EU has standardized what is tax exempt though. You can read everything which falls under VAT here. The word “service” appears 472 times by the way.
Some US states don’t have sales taxes
True they abused the system. That wasn’t my point, which is that these high property taxes have a tendency to give high quality services to affluent neighbourhoods and low cost housing get low quality services.
America also has sales tax
Hahahahahahaha
Oh no, their taxes went up with the value of their property
🎻
deleted by creator
any disaster prone area
Ummm is anybody going to tell him about climate change
until disaster hits your area.
And someone will shit on it because one rich person lives within 5 miles of you, and calling you a stupid fuck for living there.
and oh god will the tears of indignation flow from you then.
“We do have the law to comply with,” Schwartzreich says. “It really puts us in the middle.”
🤣🤣🤣
But they’re holding out hope that momentum around reform might arrive in time to help them stay in the home they’ve poured decades of love and savings into.
Yeah thats not going to happen
You’d think a real estate attorney would know better.
Anyway, property –with the improvements they made, has appreciated over $163,000 on average every year since they bought it. Ya, $75k more than they planned on sucks, but they can take it from the value of the house no?
I don’t know. I mean, there’s a good chance that the original purchase price of the house is almost paid off, but having a sudden $76,000 increase in your bills is going to be tough on anybody. Unless they have made some very bad financial decisions outside of this, that probably is more than double their monthly mortgage.
And as somebody who has an inordinate amount of equity in a house they purchased far too recently for the amount of equity that I have, it is not exactly easy to pull money out of a house as a homeowner, And even if they do take loans to pay the tax burden, that doesn’t mean that the money has been handled. It just has taken today’s problem and pushed it off for tomorrow.
I’m not attempting to justify them. I’m just examining their side with the slightest benefit of the doubt.
They just did an expensive Reno…. None of your comment makes any logic given that they just did an expensive Reno, they could afford to throw money around.
Maybe, maybe not.
Renovation loans exist, and are often secured against the property (backed by the increased value or against equity).
So there’s a real possibility that they only increased their debt and monthly expenses without having the liquid capital for the unexpected tax payments
Sucks to suck if that’s the case. If they truly couldn’t afford this, they should have been more diligent about researching the potential ramifications of making these renovations. That goes even more so for someone with experience in the field of real property.
I think I have a limited amount of empathy for the new homeless couple that’s about to have $4.4 million in the bank. -Rarely do cases of eminent domain go so well and unlike eminent domain, this was apparently their own doing.
Okay I know it’s not such a popular opinion but I’m still on the notion that you shouldn’t pay taxes for holding on to the place that you live.
Yeah yeah local governments need income and all that and their house is assessed over 4 million dollars and many people can’t even afford a home at a 10th of that and they should have known and blah blah blah but come on, commodified housing is bad enough. Paying what amounts to a rent to the state just to hold on to the property, actual repairs and upkeep and other naturally occurring costs aside is insane.
Tax the sales of property. Tax the legal transfer of control of LLCs that “own” property. I’m not even saying never charge property tax on properties not occupied by the owner, but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
My alternate take. This is a prime example of why housing shouldn’t be viewed as an investment. If the value of a home outstrips the rate that wages increase then isn’t this story always the logical conclusion?
Eventually no one will be able to afford a house not merely because they can’t buy it in the first place, but because even if they inherit it they can’t keep up with the tax bill because on paper it’s worth 8 times what their parents paid even inflation adjusted. I’m not even making those proportions up, that’s about the change in cost in my neighborhood I think.
Tax the sales of property.
I’m thinking of the untended consequences of that policy. The first I can think of is people simply would never sell their houses because they’d get hit with enormous taxes (large enough to equal decades of property taxes). Home owners would simply rent out the houses when they need/want to move away. So home ownership for those living in the homes would collapse. Further, city services would likely starve from lack of funding because there would be no little revenue and what revenue they got would be very sporadic.
but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
There are absolutely houses like that (in the USA at least). Those houses not in cities with police and fire protection, roads, sidewalks, snow plowing, public libraries, or any other kind of city services. If you want the benefits of a society someone has to pay the bill. Alternatively, some cities have income taxes or very high sales tax. Both of which you’d pay to live in the city.
Who are you suggesting paying the bill for your consumption of city services besides you?
I still think citizens should pay the bill for their services, but tax should be on the basis of income, and wealthier people should pay more to cover for those who can’t. And why not income, the money you actually bring in, and not a portion the money your home would theoretically sell for if you sold it? The point at which to take tax is the point of transfer, whether it’s labor for a wage or a change of ownership (sales and inheritance).
I absolutely don’t believe that people would be less likely to sell their property because they might have to pay a percentage of the profits from the sale. And if they were less likely to sell it, who cares? Take the money from the excess houses when they die. I think I also mentioned that I’m not principally against taxes on non-resident property (which is essentially abandoned or a business asset if not owner occupied). I’m also not against rent controls.
Like God forbid one recognize that certain approaches to taxation are problematic, it must mean you’re a conservative who’s against government services.
What home steading a home was supposed to be for. I remember in Texas you could homestead up to 10 arces and not have to pay taxes on that. I totally agree. At the very least taxes shouldn’t go up just because the value did. Only time your taxes should go up unless you sell the home, then tax you that amount.
Yeah 10 acres seems a bit excessive to me but I like the basic principle.
This is similar to the property tax structure in California.
You get a property tax rate on the purchase price, then it only goes up 2% a year or inflation (whichever is lower).
It makes it pretty impossible to be taxed out of your house. It has downsides though because it applies to commercial real estate and landlord properties as well.
Why not tax the property for all value above X. Where X is some amount over the average or median property value. That way, if you can afford a luxury home you pay some tax on it.
It’s not a bad compromise, it’s just a matter of finding a good value for X. And that’s hard to do as housing prices continue to balloon and housing costs take up a greater percentage of people’s incomes. Houses that would have cost one year’s income in the 60s can easily cost 8 to 10 times that today.
I don’t know, maybe you should have to pay property taxes if the land occupies more than a certain square footage. That could discourage suburban style development and promote greater population density, which could both act as a net positive.
Yeah, the devil would be in the details, of course, and to make sure there aren’t any obvious loopholes. Ideally it would be at increasing brackets as well.
Wouldn’t taxes on above-X value keep prices down? Buying fancy houses as investment could be countered by the additional running expense of taxes.
Basing it on square footage could also work, or as an additional parameter, but might make more sense in cities where space is more scarce.
Problem I see with price based rather than square footage is that it’s going to vary by location and generation. A human being, or a family even, needs a certain amount of space, and beyond that there is some threshold across which one could say this family or person is undoubtedly taking up more than they actually need.
For example, how much housing does a family of 5 people reasonably expect if living a middle class lifestyle in America? I think that’s something that changes generationally and regionally based on income and housing costs, but today I think such a family might expect ideally a house with five bedrooms, two or three baths, a kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, maybe also a den or other secondary communal room. I’m not saying all houses should be this big, or shouldn’t be bigger, but that a house about this big could be a fair measuring stick for determining how much square footage a house could reasonably be without the owner-occupant paying property taxes.
Or it could be based on the number of kitchens. If a house is cut up into apartments as an investment strategy, it has to have more than one kitchen generally speaking.
For price based limits I just don’t see how you avoid artificial inflation of assessments by governments or planned neglect by owners to keep houses on one side or the other of the threshold. It would also have very different impacts on different markets. And inflation and changes in the market would require whatever threshold you set to be revised fairly regularly or else fade into irrelevance.
Yeah, I agree it’s always harder to define than it seems at first glance. Square footage might be a better proxy with fewer loopholes. Problem is that a shitty rundown house will be taxed the same as a luxury house of the same size. That might be fine, I don’t know.
I think regardless of how you do it, taxes need to be adjusted for inflation or change of average living costs, like any tax brackets could/would. I think one of the goal should be to avoid artificially inflated living costs.
And also regardless of approach, tax limits should probably also depend on how many people live in the house. That can probably be abused too though.
Either way, I don’t know much about economy and taxes, this is just me thinking out loud on a complex topic.
What in the libertarian garbage is this? Do you like roads, schools, libraries, parks, garbage pickup, etc etc etc. Property taxes pay for these things.
No. Those things are paid for by other taxes and service fees.
But those things do not scale with the (alleged) value oft the property, but with things like property size, number oft occupants, curb length etc. Or could even be billed at actual cost (your garbage example).
But your taxes don’t scale with the alleged value of the property either. There are caps and protections in place. That’s why they were only paying $15k previously. And they didn’t just repair their old house, they put an entire second story on it. Hence the reason they triggered the “major improvements” clause.
yet even if your family doesn’t use these services you benefit from safe roads, educated workers, green spaces for all to have access, and public sanitation - you LITERALLY BENEFIT FROM EVERYTHING but don’t want to pay.
Why do millionaires pay more taxes than minimum-wage workers?
Whatever answer you come up to my question can probably answer yours.
Tax Other Stuff
I think you’re misunderstanding the post… He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that, since a property tax is basically a wealth tax on ordinary people because it is a tax on their single biggest asset.
He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that
Where do you want the revenue needed to fund the city to come from if not from property owners?
Workers. Employers. Commuters. Capital gains. Sales.
There are so many things you can tax, so many points where money moves from one set of hands to another where you can shave a little off the top. It’s just a bit absurd to me that we will shake people down for money for just having a home that an assessor figures could sell for some particular amount of money.
You’re planning to tax on events like sales and hope there’s enough churn to still fully-fund the things property tax provides for? That’s really hard to make a case for.
Given bungalows rarely deliver a town enough to recoup on providing and maintaining services anyway, you’re starting with a very tricky goal to maintain. Detroit happened, and that was with consistent, recurring payments.
Then you want to put a home sales tax on that is big enough to pay the back taxes plus borrowing cost to hold the debt and you think people are gonna go for this? What if you’ve owned your home 15 years, paid no taxes on the infrastructure maintenance, ambulance fire or police service, mail service, street lights and pavement, and then your house burns down? You could very well owe more than the lot is worth alone. What do we tell the homeowner about that? The town can’t absorb the loss given margins are so low.
Nah. I don’t think you can sell that idea to the voters.
You know what stops people from selling houses? Skyrocketing housing prices. Cuts out buyers, and makes loans against equity more appealing than actually cashing out.
You know what tax people can actually afford, that isn’t based on the opinions of appraisers regarding the fickle whims of a speculative market? Income tax.
Land Value Tax would solve this.
Also they live in Florida where there is no income tax so got to tax something.
How were they supposed to know real estate law being… checks notes…
a real estate attorney?
Working for. That doesn’t mean paralegal. Reception, copy, courier, title clerk, mail room, etc
That’s a fair point. But at the very least it can be said she should have had the resources not to be surprised by this.
Maybe.
Not maybe. Definitely.
She “knew the taxes could go up some”, and they had the resources to basically build an entire house.
This is poor/no planning, and entitlement.
I was going to ask why they didn’t consult a real estate attorney. Apparently they didn’t have a good one…
Reminds me of when some dumbass i worked with was ranting about owing the government too much money. Turns out he was borrowing from his 401k to do a home renovation. Which of the 1000 things you have to check as read and agreed didn’t clue you into the fact that you will be penalized for doing that?
