That is how it works all over America with the exception of California. It has its drawbacks, but it is better than the alternative. And the truth of the matter is in most cases even in California the 70 year old still downgrades, but rather than selling the home he rents it out or transfers it to a family member (to avoid reassessment) who rents it out . This dynamic lead to the rapid escalation or real estate prices as people had to pay a large premium to get someone to give up their basis in a home.
Furthermore conservatives broke the system for good as most property owners are voters and having been given a free ride for numerous years they don?t want to start suddenly paying taxes on the current market value of their homes or real estate investments. That?s why you hear so much propaganda being put out blaming it on other things because the property owners simply don?t want to pay the piper. Honestly, to fix the system the state will probably have to file bankruptcy and write a new constitution. If the Feds bail them out it will only prolong the structural problem as the state still won?t be able to raise adequate revenues to cover their expenses no matter how much they cut those expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meloman
So what happens to the person who buys a home and eventually retires with a modest income at 70. If they live in a nice neighborhood that went up in value over the years you're advocating they need to hike up the property tax to the point where the retired 70 yr old would have to sell the home and downgrade. all became the neighborhood went up in value over time . The home may be worth more but that doesn't change what the owners income level . Once the home is sold they would need to pay capital gains on the profit but as long as they live there they shouldn't get fleeced on property tax.
Rental/Commercial property I can understand your point to an extent but when applied to a regular residential owner I don't agree.
|