So your solution is to force her to sell her home and move? Move where? I've seen this in so many areas of the country where property taxes on your property are tied to market value rather than purchase price. It drives retired and lower income people out of neighborhoods that they have lived in for decades, forcing them to move down the scale of home ownership.

Perhaps the retired person is living on a fixed income of $40k/year. Over time their proterty taxes on the home that they have lived in for decades can now be more than half of their total income? How is this fair at any level?

▲

coryrc an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Reverse mortgage.

> How is this fair at any level?

How is it fair that working people have to pay 10x for housing than she did when she was young? How is it fair that the money goes to her inheritance while she made her working neighbors pay her share of taxes?

▲

phoghed an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They don’t, they move to the ghetto like she did and start the gentrification cycle again

▲

SteveGerencser an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course, let's let yet another corporate land grab take even more residential property off the market for profit-based motives. This can't possibly do any more harm than locking property taxes at the time of sale.

Where I live, we are looking at locking property taxes once you hit a specified age (65) and have under a specified income ($40k+/-). The current debates revolve around exactly what those numbers are and at what level the taxes get locked. The goal is to protect the elderly who have already contributed to the economy and society for 40+ years and not force them into a financial situation forcing them to sell their home just to pay even more property taxes that they have paid for the entire ownership.

▲

epistasis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Meeting the basic needs of the population, by having enough housing and preventing hoarding of housing by wealthy individuals, is not a "coporare land grab."

Quite the opposite.

	▲	SteveGerencser 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We are clearly talking about different things. I'm talking about protecting single home homeowners on a fixed income from being forced out of their homes. Staying in the only home she owns is not hoarding. Telling people that the solution is to sell their home to an insurance company as a solution is most certainly a corporate land grab. You seem to be arguing about people/corporations that own multiple homes or even entire portfolios of property. These are not the same argument.

▲

pixelatedindex an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Of course, let's let yet another corporate land grab take even more residential property off the market for profit-based motives.

The premise does not warrant this conclusion.

▲

nostrebored an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why should this person take up a family home in a desirable area? It is inefficient. The pressure she is feeling to leave is the system working as intended.

	▲	edmundsauto 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We shouldn’t prioritize efficiency when it comes to moral matters. That’s a bad idea for the government. People’s primary residences are more than just an economic asset. If you don’t understand that, it’s difficult to have a conversation as we have very different starting points about morality.

▲

ngaiorn an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]