While we need* property taxes, but it absolute hammers old people in some places.
Cheaper than renting still, but on a fixed income it hurts, and especially lately there have been very high tax increases due to inflation. But then the social security increases are comparatively small.
I know quite a few old people struggling and it seems like their plan was to own their home. But that turned out more expensive than expected with maintenance and taxes. Which has just led to cyclical reverse mortgages. So the banks win in the end and ensure no transfer of wealth
*It’s necessary under the current system to fund services, but if we took it from elsewhere (like the ICE of military budgets) we could greatly reduce that tax.
A refund based on assessed median home value would tend to penalize new home buyers over existing home owners, even if the existing home owner has a house that would sell for higher. Property tax assessments rarely keep up with home valuation.
I don’t quite get what you’re saying. If median home is 300k and your home is 350k assessed, then you pay property tax on 200k. 500k? Then 350k. Up to 600k where it would phase out and increase instead. I don’t see how that penalizes new home or first time home buyers. It subsidizes new homes with low assessment, starter homes, and downsized homes for the elderly. It penalizes homes worth more than 2x median.
Yes once a new home is fully assessed it could cost more potentially than an older home, but a good property formula solves for much of that. Usually it’s based on square foot and materials, not age.
In most places in the US, the assessed value of homes that have been owned for more than a decade is significantly less than the market value of a home.
The property tax burden therefore falls more on new home buyers rather than existing home owners. Eliminating the tax on the first portion of assessed value would make this existing imbalance worse, especially if the same amount of tax needed to be raised.
With comps, sq ft, materials, insured rebuild value, etc… I don’t see how it could be that hard or that unfair to assess. The biggest issue is actually gentrification causing unaffordability in older homes. Some people will lose, and have to move. If you have no income, but you also have a nice home, you gotta reverse mortgage or get relocation assistance.
Even if you own a house, there are still plenty of expenses, like bills, property tax, groceries, healthcare ('Murica), and the occasional small luxury to stay sane.
Modern day Social Security isn’t even going to cover half of that.
30 years? It’s happening right now!
https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/3991136-nearly-half-of-baby-boomers-have-no-retirement-savings/
no retirement savings, but at least they own the place they live
god help the next generation
My boomer mom inherited a house that was paid off and almost immediately did a reverse mortgage on it. 😔
To make necessary repairs to the house… right?..
Um… no.
While we need* property taxes, but it absolute hammers old people in some places.
Cheaper than renting still, but on a fixed income it hurts, and especially lately there have been very high tax increases due to inflation. But then the social security increases are comparatively small.
I know quite a few old people struggling and it seems like their plan was to own their home. But that turned out more expensive than expected with maintenance and taxes. Which has just led to cyclical reverse mortgages. So the banks win in the end and ensure no transfer of wealth
*It’s necessary under the current system to fund services, but if we took it from elsewhere (like the ICE of military budgets) we could greatly reduce that tax.
Easy, property tax deduction on first 50% median price and then ramp up the tax rate above 200% median and above.
A refund based on assessed median home value would tend to penalize new home buyers over existing home owners, even if the existing home owner has a house that would sell for higher. Property tax assessments rarely keep up with home valuation.
I don’t quite get what you’re saying. If median home is 300k and your home is 350k assessed, then you pay property tax on 200k. 500k? Then 350k. Up to 600k where it would phase out and increase instead. I don’t see how that penalizes new home or first time home buyers. It subsidizes new homes with low assessment, starter homes, and downsized homes for the elderly. It penalizes homes worth more than 2x median.
Yes once a new home is fully assessed it could cost more potentially than an older home, but a good property formula solves for much of that. Usually it’s based on square foot and materials, not age.
In most places in the US, the assessed value of homes that have been owned for more than a decade is significantly less than the market value of a home.
The property tax burden therefore falls more on new home buyers rather than existing home owners. Eliminating the tax on the first portion of assessed value would make this existing imbalance worse, especially if the same amount of tax needed to be raised.
It’s a tricky problem.
With comps, sq ft, materials, insured rebuild value, etc… I don’t see how it could be that hard or that unfair to assess. The biggest issue is actually gentrification causing unaffordability in older homes. Some people will lose, and have to move. If you have no income, but you also have a nice home, you gotta reverse mortgage or get relocation assistance.
Even if you own a house, there are still plenty of expenses, like bills, property tax, groceries, healthcare ('Murica), and the occasional small luxury to stay sane.
Modern day Social Security isn’t even going to cover half of that.
It’s the normalisation process.