[jjav]

> Well guess what?

> Now they're millionaires.

The difficulty with this reasoning is that it assumes that homes (and the land they sit on) have only economic value and nothing else matters.

> No owners "lose" from property values shooting through the roof.

In the story you just described they lost their homes they had built up and loved.

For many people, a bunch of cash doesn't replace that.

[josephcsible]

They didn't lose their houses. They sold them. When ownership of your house goes to someone else, you lost it if your bank balance stayed the same, but you sold it if your bank balance went up by the value of the house.

[jjav]

> They didn't lose their houses. They sold them.

They lost their homes which is not just a house. There's a much more emotional aspect to a home that can't be expressed in merely dollars.

They were also forced to sell in the story, it wasn't a choice.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> They lost their homes which is not just a house.

You want me to feel sorry for someone who gets a Million dollar windfall when:

1) they got a million dollar windfall

2) they now have a ridiculous amount of options (because money = options)

3) if they're really determined to stay in their house, they can cash-out refinance continuously and use some of the unrealized gains to pay property taxes (and past cash-outs)

4) they could also build an ADU on their property and rent out the ADU to cover property tax + have extra money

5) If they actually do move and leave, it's because they preferred $1M do the other options

No, sorry.

This is like feeling sorry for people who win the lottery because they have to pay taxes and then everyone calls them for a favor.

Most things in life aren't ALL good.

[jjav]

> 1) they got a million dollar windfall

You're looking at it stricly as if housing was a investment to be cashed out, as opposed to a place to settle down and live life.

There is no windfall. They got kicked out of their home by being forced to sell it.

Is the $1M a lot? Well, they are now homeless. If the property values rose so much that they got the million, all other properties rose as well and being now homeless they still need to buy a new home. It'll have to be much smaller or maybe there's nothing affordable available anymore so they have to uproot life (jobs, schools, friends, family, doctors) and move to a much cheaper city.

Very cruel, and all because some richer people want to move in and take over? That's the kind of abuse that leads to things like Prop13.

> #3 cash-out refinance continuously

This is completely unrealistic. You can't pay a recurring cost by going farther into debt every year if you can never pay it back.

[salawat]

They got a million dollar windfall in a market now shifting to where the average buyer is in a position to drop a million plus without blinking.

You can be poor, even with a million in such a market, and all that happens if you move somewhere cheaper to start again, is you perpetuate the cycle.

[anon84873628]

That's exactly the cycle of population growth. Either we build more housing to accommodate everyone, or poor people get kicked out by the rich.

The question is whether the Georgist solution is more equitable than what we have today. But no system can magically solve the problem of supply and demand.

[mekkkkkk]

Both things can be true at the same time, though. They lost their house because they were forced to sell it.