• NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    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.

  • Gravitywell@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    314
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Yeah some serious boomer logic going on here.

    “We thought that if we kept the foundation and the outer walls of the house and we just took the roof off, it was our understanding that we were going to preserve our Save Our Homes and our homestead,” says Debbie.”

    “the renovations—removing the roof, adding a second floor —ultimately triggered a full reassessment of the home’s value. Under Florida law, once a property is deemed substantially improved, it can be treated as new construction, removing the protections that had capped the home’s assessed value for years.”

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      280
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Boomer logic … “I want all the benefits, entitlements and supports of society and none of the responsibilities.”

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          9 days ago

          I mean, bullshit strategies and apparent entitled attitude aside, she does have a point. $90k is an absurd property tax rate for a single family home.

          • astutemural@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            45
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            Did you see the photo in the article? It’s a ‘single-family home’ in the way a Mercedes SUV is a minivan.

            I mean, yah, housing is way too fuckimg expensive. But that is very definitely not a no-frills family home.

              • krashmo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                If it costs $90k for a $4 million home then a $1 million home would be taxed at $22.5k. That’s still half a years salary at median wages for an average priced home in many markets. Don’t let your hatred for rich people lead you to advocating for shitty policies.

                • fireweed@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  a $1 million home [… is …] an average priced home in many markets

                  I’m going with this is the actual problem.

                  Also, your math assumes a flat tax rate, and any decent tax system is progressive. I don’t know how Florida’s works, but again, actual problems.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              8 days ago

              I don’t think it matters what the house looks like. That’s a ridiculous amount for any single home. I understand the desire to tax the rich but there are better ways to accomplish that than jacking up property taxes for everyone, especially when inflationary housing costs are a simultaneous concern.

              • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                8 days ago

                The solution is to demolish the home and build multi-family housing there. Low density single family zoning has no place in an area where the land values are that expensive. Keep that kind of development on the urban fringe where it belongs.

      • thedruid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        Trumper logic, you don’t own what you own, and you need to either pay more or give it up., and fuck you us wanting nice things

        This is the type of shit destroying us as well.

        • thedruid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          See? Both sides are idiots( talking about political parties, not class)…

          We have people who want to take too much from us and people who don’t want to give, and both sides downvote truth.

          If we want a better country, we have to be honest, not selfish

      • 3abas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        8 days ago

        Alright, so you’re a young gen z family and you buy your first home, which is all you can afford right now, you’re young and you’re starting your careers and your family.

        In 10 years, property values have increased dramatically, and you’ve had a child and you’re thinking about your second. Your careers are going well, and you think we should maybe get a bigger place for our expanding family. But oh no, there’s an unsustainable housing marketing bubble that refuses to burst, so you can’t afford a bigger place anywhere near your job. So you build UP, like they do in every multi-generational home culture, you expand your living space as your family expands.

        It’s not a crime or a moral failure to upgrade your home, and you shouldn’t jump at the opportunity to beat someone when they’re down just because you don’t empathize with this particular boomer homeowner.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          This Boomer homeowner is why those Gen Z families can’t find homes. If your single family home is worth $4 million, that is the market telling you that that single family home should not exist. The land is too in demand, too close to jobs, too close to amenities etc. to have that lot hoarded by a single selfish person. You want to live in a single family home on a quarter acre lot? Fine. Do it on the edge of the city where the land is cheap. This women’s lost could provide homes for a dozen families, at prices that would be affordable to Gen Z families. Instead people like her vote to prevent such redevelopment.

          • 3abas@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            Are you okay?

            If your single family home is worth $4 million, that is the market telling you that that single family home should not exist.

            Right, an unsustainable bubble, I said that. This boomer family bought a reasonably sized and priced house that’s on the edge of the city, and now they’re forced to sell it and not be able to replace it with a bigger home on their budget in the same part of town, they didn’t fuck things up Zillow did!

            The gen z family who buys today won’t be about to upsize tomorrow, and you’re gonna blame them.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              The fuck-up was by the city, which failed to abolish the single-family zoning in order to allow the land to be developed to its highest and best use.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Based on the backstory, they kind of did what you said, bought it in a relatively more affordable context, and then the world changed their minds around them and retroactively declared it a multi million dollar property. Well at least for tax purposes and likely insurance, but not necessarily market rate (tax assessments commonly lag the market, so a market downturn could leave them with a multi-million dollar house that no one will pay the stated value for

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Well at least for tax purposes and likely insurance, but not necessarily market rate (tax assessments commonly lag the market, so a market downturn could leave them with a multi-million dollar house that no one will pay the stated value for

              More like the house is likely worth even more than the $4.4M it was assessed at. But nice try trying to spin your point to fit your narrative.

    • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      8 days ago

      They tried to apply the building code laws. In Florida, if you do a renovation and keep the foundation and one wall, you can build to the code at the time of construction. These “protections” never applied to assessment and tax.

      Many houses in that exact area have been bought for cheap and flipped using this work around. They end up with a modern house but can avoid having to spend extra for upgraded storm mitigation, plumbing, and electric.

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah that’s the same rule up here in Jersey. You can use it to maintain a structure that goes against the current building codes (say the ordinance makes it so you can have as much, you still can). To think that a tax collector wouldn’t be like “Hey, there’s an extra 1500 square feet, two bedrooms, and another bathroom on this house” is foolish though. And you presumably pulled permits for it all and put it right on their radar.

        The way to do it is piecemeal over several decades. Nobody is none the wiser.

    • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      9 days ago

      At the same time, that absolutely is a life altering change. Even the biggest idiots don’t deserve to get their life upended. I don’t know what the right solution is, but I can extend significant empathy to “I did a dumb thing and I don’t know how to keep my home now without uprooting it”.

      I’ve only bought one home and it was recently. It was every bit as aweful as I expected but having seen what they are in for, they might not have the cash around nessicary to sell the home without getting scammed by predatory buyers.

      The entirety of real estate is so fucked

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        85
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        A professional tax attorney built a $4.4M home and expected to keep their original valuation?

        That’s not a big idiot, that’s attempted tax fraud.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’ve only bought one home and it was recently. It was every bit as aweful as I expected

        I’ve now bought two in my lifetime. I wouldn’t call either awful for my experience.

        What was bad about yours?

        • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Lots of back and forth on inspection items. We wanted a lot fixed that should be fixed and they did do it as well as a lot of consolations, but if we had to sell this house right now, as I lost my job yesterday, I wouldn’t have the cash to be able to fix stuff that needs it for another inspection

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            Lots of back and forth on inspection items. We wanted a lot fixed that should be fixed and they did do it as well as a lot of consolations,

            That’s fair. That’s pretty common, and it usually sounds worse than it is. I think its also about setting expectations. If you have the expectation that you’ll be looking at a perfect house and simply agree to the sale price, then you’ll be surprised/frustrated. If you’re prepared for that back and forth with the horse trading on what you’ll fix vs what you won’t (similar to buying a used car), then its not too bad.

            but if we had to sell this house right now, as I lost my job yesterday, I wouldn’t have the cash to be able to fix stuff that needs it for another inspection

            You aren’t required to fix anything as the seller, however your buyer can walk away if it doesn’t pass inspection. If you have lots of buyers, this can be the right choice sometimes. However, if you only have one buyer you’re going to have to compromise. The middle ground here is that you can lower the cost of the house to cover the costs of the items needed to pass inspection. Buyers will usually go for that. So even if you don’t have cash in hand to fix things, you can still sell.

        • zod000@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Every home purchase I’ve ever made was a terrible experience. I’m glad you had a better time.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 days ago

          Even reading the summary - yes they had the Homestead Exemption to do exactlyy that. However they completely rebuilt their home to a much nicer one and thought they’d keep the Homestead Exemption. This worked correctly. In phase no sympathy for trying to cheat taxes

          • Photuris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 days ago

            It would help if I’d actually read the article.

            A full night’s sleep, and I’m rethinking my comment. I was hasty.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 days ago

          I agree, we should replace property taxes with very large income and wealth taxes. First we can end property taxes and then we can implement guaranteed income so people who become disabled can afford to maintain their homes.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            The thing about yearly property taxes is they often go to the city/municipality and that’s how they pay for things.

            The city doesn’t charge income tax, that’s a state/province/fed level type thing.

            We’d need a new way for cities to collect taxes themselves, or a new system to properly and fairly distribute taxes from the incomes to the cities/municipalities where they live.

            Definitely doable, but it’s a bit different than just raising income taxes.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 days ago

              Some municipalities may also have an income tax (completely separate from state or federal income taxes). Other states have much larger sales taxes.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Where I am we have fairly low property tax and a small municipal income tax. So it splits the burden equally. If you live outside of a municipality, there will be a small income tax to support your public school district. This is also on top of State taxes income taxes and Federal income taxes. Sales taxes are also a thing at the state and city level. Honestly, I don’t feel overly taxed with the total amount of money I pay in taxes. I receive the benefits of society. This is even for services I don’t consume, but I want the services available to my neighbors that may need them, such as housing assistance, elder care, supplemental nutrition, etc.

            • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              My city charges income tax. As does the locality I actually live in. Plus property tax. Plus a School income tax on top of it…

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          If you’re old and no longer have much of an income, you still have your home. If you become disabled,

          We already have this is many states in the USA. Its called the “Homestead Exemption”. Here’s an example from Ohio:

          “This is a statewide program, administered by County Auditors under rules established by the Ohio Legislature and the Ohio Department of Taxation. This allows senior citizens (65 or older) as well as permanently and totally disabled homeowners to reduce their real estate taxes by the amount equal to the taxes that would otherwise be charged on $25,000 of the market value of an eligible taxpayer’s homestead or residence. The homestead may include up to one acre of land. Under the changes made by the Ohio Legislature and beginning with applications for tax year 2014, new participants in the program will be subject to an income test to be eligible.”

          So matter how big your house is (as long as its on one acre of land or less and you have an income $$75k/year or below) you only get charged as though the house is worth $25k, which I think would obviously be a very low tax bill.

          • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            They qualify under the local homestead law.
            But because that limits year over year increases (which I consider reasonable) and is reassessed after mayor upgrades (which they did) they now have a huge jump in taxes.

        • socsa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          This is incorrect. In China nobody owns a home. They get a lease on it from the government. For wealthy urban Chinese this has meant they get lifetime ownership so far, but this is not guaranteed.

          Also if you are not born with the correct hukou then you are not allowed to purchase any valuable property at all.

          • Photuris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            Ok, so, apparently, I don’t know what I’m talking about. I did watch one YouTube video though, and suddenly I felt like an expert on China.

  • Chris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    181
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    They basically rebuilt their home and are sad it’s appraised at market value.

    That’s at least what I got from it.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        If it’s that big of a problem for their life, why not just sell the house and be multi-millionaires? It’s a non-story. Maybe they should’ve taken that into consideration.

        • SpikesOtherDog@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          So, the house is now valued at 6x the original value? If they sold it at only 4-5x it would still be a huge win.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            9 days ago

            Their taxes were grandfathered in because they bought the property at a much lower value, the house was already worth a lot more than they paid for it.

          • Celestus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            They want the house, not the money. Now they’ll be forced to sell to some rich person. Doesn’t sound like a win to me

            • SpikesOtherDog@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              Maybe it is different for me because I moved every couple years growing up. I have lived in 15 places in my life, and the most recent is a record of over a decade.

  • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Rich boomers who haven’t worked in 30 years want to keep property values high without paying the property tax to go with it

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Hahahahahahaha

    Oh no, their taxes went up with the value of their property

    🎻

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’m not entirely unsympathetic since property values have skyrocketed ridiculously mostly due to the super rich and hedge funds buying up housing like it’s candy.

    However, these people got an assessment for doing some renovations without replacing the walls or a major overhaul of the property, then promptly added a whole second floor to the building when they said they were just replacing the roof. They gambled that the assessors wouldn’t take note and lost.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I’m not entirely unsympathetic since property values have skyrocketed ridiculously

      Absolutely.

      Where I live here in KC the county was sued over it, and the people won, and they’re still not going to get a reimbursement. Property tax assessments are insane, and millionaire or no, it’s exceedingly unfair and wrong.

      Yet another example of how having one party ruling in Washington is screwing all of us over. There’s just largely no real recourse.

    • lightsblinken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      yeah, and the guy was professionally working in the real estate space… feels like they are in the “find out” stage.

      • Etterra@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        What the hell did they even need a house that size for? They look like empty nesters, which means they don’t need that size of a house. They want that size of a house. Since it’s an investment at this point, and they had that monster reassessed at a ridiculous price, they’re better off just selling it and moving somewhere cheap. Well, cheaper.

  • blitzen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    9 days ago

    How were they supposed to know real estate law being… checks notes…

    a real estate attorney?

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Working for. That doesn’t mean paralegal. Reception, copy, courier, title clerk, mail room, etc

      • blitzen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

          • blitzen@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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?

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    The homeowners have two options, and both options suck.

    • sell
    • don’t sell

    Both alternatives carry costs. But they own a home worth 4.4mil and have to pay 2% of that each year. That’s pretty low.

    • anachronist@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Renters have two options:

      • get fucked
      • move (and get fucked)

      At least if the homeowner sells they get the windfall.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      9 days ago

      Hmm. So if you buy a house in your 20s, by the time you retire, you would have bought the equivalent of 2.5 houses. One for you, one from the government for the privilege of living in the one you bought, and half a house worth of interest to the bank.

      That’s an insane amount of money.

        • laserm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          8 days ago

          I mean, if the US government wasn’t so stingy about, y know, actually spending on it’s people instead of the military, tax cuts for billionaires and buerocracy, it would be fine imo. Here, in CZ, I’m mostly fine with the taxes since we’re a pretty safe country with decent healthcare. Despite the country still having a huge corruption problem and housing market in flames, it still somehow has higher living Ng standard than the US.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 days ago

            100% we should complain about how our money is used, and how much is paid by whom. But that’s a different complaint.

          • potpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            Your property taxes don’t go towards those things though. Maybe a bloated police force, but that’s still usually funded via earned income tax.

            • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Your federal taxes could go towards local governments if we prioritized it. There’s a choice made, and that choice forces cities to adopt as many taxes as they can get away with in order to fund themselves.

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Don’t you pay tax also for the purchase itself? Might be anothe 10%

        And the yearly tax, is it based on purchase cost or current value? The later would be harsh seeing how they increase.

        • Horsey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          There’s no tax on buying property, however, property taxes are a percentage of your property’s assessed value. In my locality, the assessed value has a lot of deductions whereby my 400K house is only taxable as 32K in value, so I pay 3K/year in taxes.

          I can’t speak for Florida, but if it’s like Arizona, their property is worth a lot more than 4M if their total tax burden is 90K/year.

  • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 days ago

    Debbie, who had worked for a real estate attorney for nearly 25 years

    Lol, a real estate attorney didn’t see this coming? I feel sorry for any clients of hers.

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    Having your home valued at $4,400,000 is what most of us would call a nice problem to have.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Actually it’s a pretty bad problem to have. If you bought an affordable house at the time but gentrification comes for your area you suddenly can’t afford to live in the house you bought and despite whatever roots you’ve put down, now you have to try to migrate somewhere else.

      Note that even if your tax assessment says you can get a few million out of your house, it’s likely not that easy, it can take a long time to find a buyer in the best of times, I imagine especially if you are seeking a buyer willing to pay millions…

      It’s not as bad as renting in the same scenario, but it’s not great to suddenly have rich person cost of ownership come at you when you bought into a non rich person level house

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        and its not even because you are wasting resources, like water for a large pool, but property tax/land value tax imposed on you.

        I remember that last year pro-LVT people were very loud here on lemmy for some fucking unbelievable reason, and they were completely deaf to being called out that this will happen, that rich people will fuck you over in yet another major aspect of your life

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • blitzen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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?

    • bizarroland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          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

          • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

  • Ton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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.

  • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    So you were house rich but they never reassessed meaning last year you paid 15k on a 3.9m home nicw

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Sell it and live somewhere cheaper on your wealth. Oh nos the shitty market gave me 4 million dollars what ever shall I do!

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yeah because people love to be forced out of their homes. Does the amount of money really matter? It’s gentrification, plain and simple.

          • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            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.