The so-called "windfall" protection for homeowners? Is it real or not? (neighborhood, income)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Brian, I truly hope you get socked beyond belief with taxes, so you learn something.

And I am hoping you get your taxes lowered, mostly just because I think that would be hilarious after all this.

I don't know what that says about us as people.

[Clint.]

Hyperbole.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And I am hoping you get your taxes lowered, mostly just because I think that would be hilarious after all this.

I don't know what that says about us as people.

The only way you will learn is by real life. I can tell that. I don't really want your taxes to increase to be honest, but if they double or triple I wonder if you will still go to your grave thinking you are correct in that our governing bodies really have our best interest at heart. I feel they are just trying to gain more fat, to spread it around to their friends. What do you get for those massive taxes in the city? Great schools?? Hmmm. Great roads? Hmmm. Great snow removal? Hmmm!

[gg]

Originally Posted by Brookline_sylvia

Hyperbole.

Correct. Just an example, not to be taken literally. One has to wonder what the reaction would be however.

I know I am getting slammed. I am always in court with the two properties I own. It never ends. This time I am coming in with both guns blazing. I might have a group of attorneys present, like a team. Remember OJ Simpson?

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by caroline2

One of the most perverse consequences of the freeloader culture that we've created here in America is that when things are eventually righted in some narrow, small slice of civic life, the displaced freeloaders manage to convince themselves that they're the victims!

An equally cynical view would be that the county is penalizing those that have improved their area and made them nicer communities while rewarding those that have let their areas go down the toilet over the past 10 years.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

An equally cynical view would be that the county is penalizing those that have improved their area and made them nicer communities while rewarding those that have let their areas go down the toilet over the past 10 years.

Of course often the individuals in question had no control over those dynamics--indeed, many of the buyers in high-appreciation neighborhoods may be recent arrivals.

But I do think it is worth noting some fundamental asymmetries.

Specifically, if you bought in a neighborhood which then experienced above-average appreciation, and as a result your taxes might be going up, often you will then have a choice about what to do with the extra equity in your home: you could take it as a cash windfall by selling and moving (and your windfall will likely be tax-free, if this is your home), or you could decide to use that equity to help finance your new tax payments (and you could get a tax break for that as well, if you itemize your deductions). However, there is unlikely to be a similar financing option available if you bought in a neighborhood that experienced depreciation, and of course if you sell you will be locking in your loss.

Of course all this is pretty much common sense--if you are contemplating who can better bear the burden of some amount of taxation, odds are the better choice is the person with a large asset that is appreciating relatively rapidly. And again, it is not that you don't care about that person if you reach such a conclusion--you just care about the other person as well.

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

An equally cynical view would be that the county is penalizing those that have improved their area and made them nicer communities while rewarding those that have let their areas go down the toilet over the past 10 years.

100% correct. I should have never done anything to fix my current home up. The location was enough for me to want to stay, but now I am in for a shock wave that will force sale. Should have let this place look very run down. My rental looks horrible, so I am not overly worried about that one.

[squarian]

To pursue this mealy-mouthed line of inquiry, there are some fundamental asymmetries involved in the purchase of lottery tickets. Specifically, if you buy a lottery ticket which experiences above-average appreciation, by let's say winning the lottery, then you will often have a choice about what to do with your winnings. However, those who buy losing tickets are unlikely to have similar choices. Of course, lottery winnings are subject to taxation, and when we make decisions about tax policy it's best to consider only criteria beyond the tax-payer's control, such as sheer dumb luck, or appreciation of a particular neighborhood, when deciding who is better able to bear the burden. And again, it's not that we don't care about people, we just prefer to carry out our existence on an astral plane populated with theory, charts, tables and statistics.

[BrianTH]

If everyone who buys a house is also forced to buy a lottery ticket, and we have to tax one group or the other, doesn't it make sense to tax the winners of the lottery rather than the losers?

And yes, the people who lost the lottery are equally worthy of our caring. I'm sorry if that offends the winners of the lottery, but I'm not going to stop caring about all the people involved.

By the way, if the actual point underlying all this is that we'd be better off relying less on property tax and more on things like income taxes, I'd completely agree. But then you should be saying that, not just flaming those who think the reassessment is preferable to doing nothing at all.

[squarian]

Also sprach Zarathustra.