“Mansion tax” to be introduced by Grosso in DC for homes worth over $1million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:



Gentrification is a bad thing. People shouldn’t be pushed out of their homes because they can’t afford the new tax assessment. Dumb.

Gentrification is complicated. Those who own their homes are least likely to get pushed out, because they own their own homes, you know. Renters are the ones who are really at risk. Homeowners who are facing rising taxes have also experienced significant wealth increases from the appreciation.

I lived in Shaw in the 1990's when property values were taking off. I sold my house for almost four times what I paid for it, six years later. It was hard on renters, but I never met a homeowner who was dismayed at the rising values. We might grumble about the taxes going up but it was a form of humble-bragging. What did exist was lots of people who were outraged on our behalf.

DC has one of the lowest residential tax rates in the country -- 85 cents per hundred. Your house goes up in value by $100,000 and your taxes go up by $850. It's hard to imagine a person who wouldn't take that deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me ask this: if we're going to tax property, why shouldn't it be progressive, like income taxes?

“Progressive” is a nice sounding word that means resentful class warfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

Someone with a million dollar home isn't "working class." If they're finding their taxes too expensive, they can sell their home and gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity to buy a new home that doesn't qualify as a "mansion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

Someone with a million dollar home isn't "working class." If they're finding their taxes too expensive, they can sell their home and gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity to buy a new home that doesn't qualify as a "mansion."

But don’t you see that this is exactly what forces people in the neighborhoods that are gentrifying to sell? Prices go up and original owners are forced to leave homes their families have owned for generations because they can’t afford the property taxes. This is either a good thing or a bad thing, it can’t be both. I personally think people having to leave their homes because property values have skyrocketed and they long ago paid off their homes and now can’t afford the taxes isn’t a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

Someone with a million dollar home isn't "working class." If they're finding their taxes too expensive, they can sell their home and gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity to buy a new home that doesn't qualify as a "mansion."

But don’t you see that this is exactly what forces people in the neighborhoods that are gentrifying to sell? Prices go up and original owners are forced to leave homes their families have owned for generations because they can’t afford the property taxes. This is either a good thing or a bad thing, it can’t be both. I personally think people having to leave their homes because property values have skyrocketed and they long ago paid off their homes and now can’t afford the taxes isn’t a good thing.

I agree with PP. I think the supporters are somehow drawing a distinction between a couple who purchased their house maybe 10-15 years ago in a hot neighborhood (i.e., big equity in house) and an older couple who purchased their house many decades ago or even inherited the house in the same neighborhood (i.e., bigger equity in house). Seemingly, supporters are sympathetic to latter but not former. An answer is to tie real property taxes to inflation for principal residences, so that taxes do not increase faster than inflation, which presumably is less than increase in property values. Any homeowner should expect property taxes to increase by inflation. Principal residences should be tied to those who file DC income taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

Someone with a million dollar home isn't "working class." If they're finding their taxes too expensive, they can sell their home and gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity to buy a new home that doesn't qualify as a "mansion."

But don’t you see that this is exactly what forces people in the neighborhoods that are gentrifying to sell? Prices go up and original owners are forced to leave homes their families have owned for generations because they can’t afford the property taxes. This is either a good thing or a bad thing, it can’t be both. I personally think people having to leave their homes because property values have skyrocketed and they long ago paid off their homes and now can’t afford the taxes isn’t a good thing.

OP here, and agree with this. I don't like the concept of longtime homeowners on fixed income being uprooted under these circumstances.

Also, when we bought 5+ years ago, our area wasn't hot. I mean, we weren't blindsided; we knew there was some planned development nearby and that there were other factors that might mean our neighborhood would be a good buy. We didn't expect it to happen so soon. We have young kids and would prefer not to move anytime soon, if we can help it. I'm sure plenty of our neighbors are also in our position--they stretched to find a forever home (or somewhere to be until kids graduate high school) and would like to stay put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

Someone with a million dollar home isn't "working class." If they're finding their taxes too expensive, they can sell their home and gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity to buy a new home that doesn't qualify as a "mansion."

But don’t you see that this is exactly what forces people in the neighborhoods that are gentrifying to sell? Prices go up and original owners are forced to leave homes their families have owned for generations because they can’t afford the property taxes. This is either a good thing or a bad thing, it can’t be both. I personally think people having to leave their homes because property values have skyrocketed and they long ago paid off their homes and now can’t afford the taxes isn’t a good thing.

I agree with PP. I think the supporters are somehow drawing a distinction between a couple who purchased their house maybe 10-15 years ago in a hot neighborhood (i.e., big equity in house) and an older couple who purchased their house many decades ago or even inherited the house in the same neighborhood (i.e., bigger equity in house). Seemingly, supporters are sympathetic to latter but not former. An answer is to tie real property taxes to inflation for principal residences, so that taxes do not increase faster than inflation, which presumably is less than increase in property values. Any homeowner should expect property taxes to increase by inflation. Principal residences should be tied to those who file DC income taxes.

They are. Care to guess why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

The AA grandmother already gets a massive 50% property tax discount in DC just by virtue of being old.

https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/homesteadsenior-citizen-deduction

City services are not free. Old people need to pay their fair share. They can tap into the substantial equity of their home, if needed.

[Anonymous]

Grosso should be Ex A of what happens to critical thinking after the cumulative effects of frequent pot use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grosso should be Ex A of what happens to critical thinking after the cumulative effects of frequent pot use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it looks like he's updated his proposal to focus on homes $1.5m+ and also 5m+. I'm a little better with this, although it seems that with inflation, this will need to be updated in 10 years when 1.5m is no longer a "mansion."

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/more-details-emerge-on-proposed-dc-mansion-tax/15396

In other words, OP, as long as it doesn't cost you, it's fine. You want stuff for free but don't want to have to pay into the system to get it.

This.

LOL. "I'M barely getting by with my 1 million dollar home, but HE is rich with his 1.5 million dollar home."

We stretched and stretched to buy our home 10 years ago at WAY less than 1 million. It happened to be a good investment and is appraised at just under a million now. But that doesn’t mean that we can afford some kind of luxury home tax. It means that we are a couple of poors who made a smart real estate investment.

OP here, yes, this is our situation too. We're in a somewhat hot area and so I think our home would appraise for close to $1m pretty soon, but it's far from a mansion, and we're quite far from rich.

Do you really not recognize your privilege? You bought a home for a relatively low amount and it's now worth $1 million dollars. You have major equity in this home. If you were truly "poor" you would sell the house if you couldn't afford the taxes and buy somewhere cheaper. But no, you just want to cry poor from your million dollar home.

This is an entirely reasonable position. But, I wonder, PP - do you also apply the same standards to the AA grandmother who is can't afford her taxes? Or the working class AA family who can't afford rent because property values went up? Or are they the victims of gentrification, and we need to do everything we can to protect them?

you can't have it both ways - pick one.

The AA grandmother already gets a massive 50% property tax discount in DC just by virtue of being old.

https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/homesteadsenior-citizen-deduction

City services are not free. Old people need to pay their fair share. They can tap into the substantial equity of their home, if needed.

Or they need to move out and move on. Oldsters tend to be the NIMBYs who don’t want any change. They hoard their houses as they age in place which keep prices high for people who are looking for homes. Young people want smart geothermal, density, great restaurants and a vibrant DC - not tired places serving the ‘5 o’clock special’ crowd. Come to think of it, “aging in place” is a good description of much of DC. That needs to change.

[Anonymous]

Typo: young people want Smart Growth.

[Anonymous]

Instead of increasing again the tax burden on residential property the mayor and council might consider eliminating some of the many substantial loopholes and special tax breaks that they have provided for commercial development in Washington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of increasing again the tax burden on residential property the mayor and council might consider eliminating some of the many substantial loopholes and special tax breaks that they have provided for commercial development in Washington.

Isnt this what liberals are asking for on the national level? Wonder why our very liberal council is not embracing that?