That's true, the longest I lived in the same house was for 19 years.
As for my sympathy for grandma and grandpa, the idea that they are now forced to live in a box on the street corner is absolute laughable bullshit. Remember after all, the reason why their property taxes are going up so much as to send them into this imagined destitution is because their house has enormously increased in value. While my heart breaks for these people and like all good Americans I hate these evil hipsters (who have to live with 5 roommates because grandma and grandpa wouldn't let the city zone for greater density), I bet grandma and grandpa can salve their hurt feelings due to the enormity of the financial windfall that will by itself eclipse what most Americans spend a lifetime attempting to save.
Well I can't speak for other laws but I personally see little value in taxing someone less based on how long they've lived at their particular address. What that does is shift the tax burden from older residents who are (generally) better off financially onto younger, less wealthy residents. It's the opposite of what we should be doing.
I'm still struggling to see the huge problem here. Those people are being 'taxed out of their homes' because something they bought for $50,000 is now worth $600,000 or more. Maybe the right answer is to say 'sorry you have to move, here's $600,000 as compensation.'
It'll cost them $600K to buy another in the same area.
So NIMBY locals are eventually going to destroy their own home equity, but in the meantime they are raking it in.
Wealthy people tend to be older but seniors don't tend to be high income but rather fixed income. The key to being able to retire & get out of the way is low overhead. The problem is that cost increases over the years eat into that in no small way.
It'll cost them $600K to buy another in the same area.
The bigger issue with NIMBYism is not people looking to demo their home for building a multifamily building. It comes into play mainly in the downtown areas near mass transit (think areas within walking distance to a commuter rail). Transit-centered building would encourage younger people to move out and allow for people of fewer means to live in areas within reasonable commute distances of their jobs.But you're telling them to move out and demo their homes anyway... to make room for apartment buildings. Maybe they want to keep their homes regardless of equity.
^ This is a ridiculous argument. People living in a nice area should just get out of the way of folks who want to make a quick buck trashing it. On this issue, you've gone through the looking glass.
BTW, I think Prop 13 is horrible policy, but that is a different discussion.
You're conflating two issues. One is equitable taxation where we are probably in agreement and the other is zoning where we disagree.You think it is a ridiculous argument that people should pay property taxes on the actual value of their property?
That is the argument in a nutshell. ‘I’ve lived here for awhile therefore my property taxes should be lower than yours for the same property.’
Not necessarily. They could downsize, they could move to a neighboring community where prices aren't as high, etc...
You're conflating two issues. One is equitable taxation where we are probably in agreement and the other is zoning where we disagree.
They'll have to downsize to pay the moving expenses & the realtor fees along with the property taxes.
If we want places to build high density housing that are close in then we can exercise eminent domain over places like the Denver Country Club golf course.
The article ignores any discussion of Prop 13 in CA. This law sets property taxes at 1% of the assessed value of the property at the time the law was passed in 1978. There is no reassessment until the home gets sold. People can pass their property on to their kids without triggering a reassessment. Today a typical home in the bay area will sell for ~$1.5 million. But the owner would be paying property taxes equal to 1% of say $90,000, the value of their home in 1978. $900 per year in property taxes for a property worth $1.5 million. Only in California.
Bottom line: no one wants to sell their homes here. They hold on to them as long as possible to keep the low tax rate, and many leave their homes to their kids. This shrinks supply in the housing market and keeps prices way up.
The bigger issue with NIMBYism is not people looking to demo their home for building a multifamily building. It comes into play mainly in the downtown areas near mass transit (think areas within walking distance to a commuter rail). Transit-centered building would encourage younger people to move out and allow for people of fewer means to live in areas within reasonable commute distances of their jobs.
Right now, municipalities are dragging their feet on these downtown rezoning projects and communities come up with all sorts of BS excuses to stop it. They want to keep the door shut after they've already moved in.
Historically, zoning laws against multifamily homes has also been a way to keep poorer and minority groups out of communities, perpetuating de facto segregation and systemic income inequality issues with respect to public services.
People need to quit having so many damn kids. We have reached the breaking point. The ecosystem is collapsing in on itself. Mass extinctions, global warming, traffic jams at nearly any hour, etc.. Won't be long until there are serious water and food shortages. All the while these inconsiderate people think they and their little runny nose kids are so special. So special they need 4 kids.
People need to quit having so many damn kids. We have reached the breaking point. The ecosystem is collapsing in on itself. Mass extinctions, global warming, traffic jams at nearly any hour, etc.. Won't be long until there are serious water and food shortages. All the while these inconsiderate people think they and their little runny nose kids are so special. So special they need 4 kids.
US birth rate is below replacement now. Traffic is more about the move to urban/suburban areas and abandonment of rural America.
Fukushima you.We should look to Japan to guide us. They know exactly how to get their population to stop having children and start improving the environment around them.
And one of the keys in retirement is also having sufficient savings. $600,000 I’m additional capital goes a long way towards that.
Darn, they might have to either rent in that area where the proceeds from their windfall will likely cover most or all of the costs of renting or they will have to buy somewhere else more reasonably priced and then have a larger retirement nest egg than the vast majority of Americans simply because of where they bought a house a few decades ago.
There is no magical eternal right to live in an area just because you bought a house there a few decades back. The idea that low or negative net worth people should have to subsidize high net worth people in order to prevent them from having to realize their extraordinary profits is ridiculous nonsense.
If simply wanting to live in the house is what they are after and it’s not to keep their inflated house price AND not pay taxes on it then I’ve got a great deal for people. Let’s repeal prop 13 and I’ll personally guarantee some elderly person that they won’t pay any more in property taxes than they do today. The caveat is that when they die I get their house. Since it’s not about money this should be fine, right?
US birth rate is below replacement now.
Which would be great, except we import millions / year. Thus our population is still skyrocketing.
Someone here presented this to me once before. To what end, you want to argue that it's stable, or too small to matter?
This very topic suggests it matters a great deal to cause stress over resources, such as land.
And if you don't coach the numbers and hide them behind a tiny sounding statistic, they can speak for themselves.
It's a net gain of +100 million in my lifetime.