> One way out could be to tax the value gain at the time of sale, or when the house gets rented out, thus no longer being “owner occupied”.

My local government put exactly this on the ballot: a small percentage transfer tax on the sale price of the home, which would offset some of the costs we currently pay in ad valorem property taxes.

The local real estate community had a meltdown and poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into defeating it, which my neighbors obliged and did.

▲

mikeryan 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I own a home in Berkeley which loves transfer taxes. They’re creative about it though they tax at different rates based on the home sales price. Starting 1/1/27 the transfer tax goes from 2.5% to 3.5% based on the selling price of the home.

It’s been attractive to voters since most homes sell in the first tier.

You can reclaim some of the transfer tax by performing seismic upgrades which is actually something I support in a town with some houses that can be 100 years old.

▲

dave78 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think many people would have a hard time believing that a new tax in one area would be offset by lowering taxes in another. Even if they did reduce property taxes shortly after passage, many people would assume they will raise them again later on.

	▲	jonhohle 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If it wasn’t combined in the same bill, the people will just have two taxes going forward. Effectively every “temporary” tax becomes a permanent tax. During the last local election, our city council was asking people to vote to replace an expiring tax with one at a lower rate and trying to sell it as voting for this reduces your tax.

▲

PopAlongKid 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> One way out could be to tax the value gain at the time of sale, or when the house gets rented out, thus no longer being “owner occupied”.

>My local government put exactly this on the ballot: a small percentage transfer tax on the sale price of the home,

First comment suggests taxing the gain (income tax), while second comment suggests a tax on sale price (gross receipts tax). Two very different things.

	▲	anticorporate 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		While I grant you that they are two different things, two-thirds of the average sale price in my area is from gains in value accrued over the time the home was occupied prior to sale, almost all of which is currently untaxed.

▲

lostmsu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem with transfer taxes is they bolt you to the place.

▲

jabl an hour ago | parent [-]

That is true, but on the other hand if you had to pay a hefty yearly property or wealth tax you might not be able to afford it in the sense that your wealth is bound up in the house.

The counter is of course that when you buy a house you should make sure you have enough income and/or liquid wealth so that you can pay the taxes. And if not, move to a smaller house. Of course, opponents of such taxation will then roll out all kinds of grannies living in mansions on meager pensions. Then again, is it fair that this prices out younger people from the property market?

As difficult as they are, I do think we'll need some form of wealth taxation in order to put a brake on spiraling inequality. Yes, call me a fan of Piketty if you want.

	▲	engineer_22 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A wealth tax is just a warning shot to your wealthy neighbors, if they can afford to flee, they'll flee. If you're planning a peasant revolt you should really consider going all-in, bloody revolution, you give the kulaks less time & space to plan for contingencies.