Anonymous wrote:I totally understand they dont want to move, but they also need to pay their taxes. I don’t need to subsidize your child or grandchild’s inheritance. Put your equity to work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People upset at boomers "hoarding" houses, where do you want the boomers to move to if you force them to sell? You'd just be driving them into the starter home markets if the goal is to get them to move to smaller properties.
There is no logic here. Just angry spiel and rambling typical of unintelligent left wing progressives.
No one is forcing them to sell. Boomers can make their own decision. They can downsize if they want to. Don’t expect any property tax sympathy from me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People upset at boomers "hoarding" houses, where do you want the boomers to move to if you force them to sell? You'd just be driving them into the starter home markets if the goal is to get them to move to smaller properties.
There is no logic here. Just angry spiel and rambling typical of unintelligent left wing progressives.
No one is forcing them to sell. Boomers can make their own decision. They can downsize if they want to. Don’t expect any property tax sympathy from me.
Anonymous wrote:People upset at boomers "hoarding" houses, where do you want the boomers to move to if you force them to sell? You'd just be driving them into the starter home markets if the goal is to get them to move to smaller properties.
There is no logic here. Just angry spiel and rambling typical of unintelligent left wing progressives.
Anonymous wrote:People upset at boomers "hoarding" houses, where do you want the boomers to move to if you force them to sell? You'd just be driving them into the starter home markets if the goal is to get them to move to smaller properties.
There is no logic here. Just angry spiel and rambling typical of unintelligent left wing progressives.
Anonymous wrote:People upset at boomers "hoarding" houses, where do you want the boomers to move to if you force them to sell? You'd just be driving them into the starter home markets if the goal is to get them to move to smaller properties.
There is no logic here. Just angry spiel and rambling typical of unintelligent left wing progressives.
Anonymous wrote:Great - i am happy with the policy of Fairfax.
Lets work on the policies across america.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Are boomers grandfathered in to low taxes and insurance or something? How on earth could they pay so much lower than the rest of us with similar houses?
When it comes to property taxes, many states (eg, California) and local jurisdictions (eg, DC and thousands of other cities & counties) cap property taxes from appreciating for long time home owners. So if you own your home for a long time, you will pay only a fraction in property taxes of what newer home owners will pay. This is especially true in areas that have seen rapid price appreciation in recent years.
It’s massively market-distorting and keeps older residents in their big homes because they don’t want to pay more in taxes. California tried to alleviate this by allowing older residents to sell their home and apply the original discounted property tax rate to a new property….its had mixed results. But even in California, you have houses in Malibu that are worth $10m but they pay the original property tax on the $300K value when they purchased the property in 1980. So maybe they pay $10K per year in property taxes while their next door neighbor pays $100K/year.
There’s variations of these tax distortions all over the US. Now apply this to vacation homes and investment properties, plus zoning restrictions….it puts younger buyers at a massive disadvantage.
This is insane! So the rest of us are subsidizing boomers?!
It is not just Boomers. My friend bought a home in Malibu CA and closed on it Jan 2020. Home prices in Malibu have had a massive increase since Jan 2020 and he locked in much lower taxes for life than people buying in 2024 as his is based off Jan 2020 prices.
If your friend can afford Maiibu, he can afford to pay his taxes.
He doesn’t have to. Good luck changing CA law.
Malibu was no bargain in Jan 2020. Your friend is still paying far more than his neighbors who bough in 1985.
He paid 2 million for a small home in Malibu. It is currently worth on redfin 3.5 million. A 2024 buyer of his exact house if he sold it would pay 75% more property tax. He has three kids so pretty sure home will be passed on to one. They are 15, 12 and 5. My bets on 5 year old getting it!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I totally understand they dont want to move, but they also need to pay their taxes. I don’t need to subsidize your child or grandchild’s inheritance. Put your equity to work.
I have no idea what you're going on about. We live in Northern Va and pay our taxes just like everyone else does. We were also able to afford our home by moving further out to the exurbs and commuting to work a longer distance. You really are clueless.
Many of these subsidies are based on income and/or net worth. Loudoun for example looks at both whereas I believe FFX just looks at income. It’s not as simple as - I’m old, no taxes for me! The same rules also apply to individuals that are fully disabled, but yet PP isn’t ready to shove them off to an apartment or a more expensive smaller home.
https://www.loudoun.gov/5002/Real-Property-Tax-Exemption-Elderly-Disa
Nope, Fairfax looks at both. If you are 65 or older, and have a combined net worth over $400K (excluding the value of your home), you don't qualify for a property tax exemption in Fairfax, regardless of your income level.