undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAunche3y ago0 comments

>The 'can't put old widows out of their homes' scenario is why California's Prop 13 came to be

That's the Prop 13 lobbyist's excuse. In reality, these old widows are never at risk of being kicked out of their house at all. I'm sure plenty of investors would be willing to pay off the widow's taxes in exchange for ownership of the property after they pass.

0 comments

salawat3y ago

Which guarantees the centralization of assets in the hands of a monied few. You might as well just write carpetbagger on your forehead. It's quite clear the outcome you're vested in. The entire concept of an estate existing to anyone but the already well-heeled would become even rarer than it is now.

If you want to invest, go solve a problem that isn't creating a predatory pressure on the real estate market. Homes and property should be affordable. Not investment vehicles, or somewhere to hide cash from that nasty inflation.

AuncheOP3y ago

What a ridiculous assertion. Either you're a carpetbagger yourself or you're simply completely ignorant to economics. We're talking about the most progressive form of taxation here that most affects the wealthy. Any revenue generated from land taxes is revenue that doesn't have to taxed from income or sales, so regular people would be able to accumulate a much larger estate to begin with.

>Not investment vehicles, or somewhere to hide cash from that nasty inflation.

Exactly, which is the point of disincentivizing people of treating it as an investment...

lazide3y ago

For Boomers, their homes are one of the few investments they've done as a class that has actually paid off. It's the source of the 'millionaire next door' and the basis of a large portion of that generations nest eggs.

Oops.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse