Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by silisili 740 days ago
Interesting, seems CA is 2% and FL is 3%.

Both should probably be pegged to the inflation rate nationally each year, which would probably bring them up a few ticks, but otherwise seems reasonable to me. For owner occupied of course, -not- landlords.
1 comments
throw__away7391 740 days ago
> Both should probably be pegged to the inflation rate

Yes I agree...but not the CPI, it should be tied specifically to housing prices. You could even have the state hire appraises to figure out the value of each specific property and peg the rate of increase to that for each property owner.

link
silisili 739 days ago
I know this comment is tongue in cheek, but I still disagree. When you purchase a house, you look at principal, taxes, PMI, and insurance before making a decision. If you're responsible, I guess.

If your little city blows up, and your property value in the market is now 3x what it was, why should you be punished and even forced out if you can't afford the new taxes? New buyers do the same math, and decide they can afford it.. Yes they're paying more, but voluntarily on a likely overpriced asset.

I'm not saying the original owners should just pay less and that's fair, screw the new buyers. I just think the increase should be capped realistically.

link
throw__away7391 739 days ago
The fair way to handle this would be to reduce the tax rate across the board in response to housing inflation. Somehow. Governments around the world are more than happy to see housing prices rise, as are existing property owners, so I am not exactly holding my breath for this to happen.
link