• Gravitywell@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    315
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Yeah some serious boomer logic going on here.

    “We thought that if we kept the foundation and the outer walls of the house and we just took the roof off, it was our understanding that we were going to preserve our Save Our Homes and our homestead,” says Debbie.”

    “the renovations—removing the roof, adding a second floor —ultimately triggered a full reassessment of the home’s value. Under Florida law, once a property is deemed substantially improved, it can be treated as new construction, removing the protections that had capped the home’s assessed value for years.”

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      279
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Boomer logic … “I want all the benefits, entitlements and supports of society and none of the responsibilities.”

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          3 days ago

          I mean, bullshit strategies and apparent entitled attitude aside, she does have a point. $90k is an absurd property tax rate for a single family home.

          • astutemural@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            45
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Did you see the photo in the article? It’s a ‘single-family home’ in the way a Mercedes SUV is a minivan.

            I mean, yah, housing is way too fuckimg expensive. But that is very definitely not a no-frills family home.

              • krashmo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                If it costs $90k for a $4 million home then a $1 million home would be taxed at $22.5k. That’s still half a years salary at median wages for an average priced home in many markets. Don’t let your hatred for rich people lead you to advocating for shitty policies.

                • fireweed@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  a $1 million home [… is …] an average priced home in many markets

                  I’m going with this is the actual problem.

                  Also, your math assumes a flat tax rate, and any decent tax system is progressive. I don’t know how Florida’s works, but again, actual problems.

                  • krashmo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Inflated home values are a huge part of the problem. That’s a large part of the point I’m making. At face value it seems fine to say “they have a $4 million home, they can afford the property taxes” but if you apply the same rate to the homes that average people have to buy you’re going to end up in a shitty spot. If taxing the rich is the goal we shouldn’t be talking about property taxes on single family homes unless it’s specifically related to second and third homes.

                  • zod000@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Not that it changes your point, but Florida’s property tax is not progressive in any of the areas that I lived.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              I don’t think it matters what the house looks like. That’s a ridiculous amount for any single home. I understand the desire to tax the rich but there are better ways to accomplish that than jacking up property taxes for everyone, especially when inflationary housing costs are a simultaneous concern.

              • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 days ago

                The solution is to demolish the home and build multi-family housing there. Low density single family zoning has no place in an area where the land values are that expensive. Keep that kind of development on the urban fringe where it belongs.

          • atempuser23@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s right! Why should rich people who own very high value assets have to pay more in taxes! That’s like woke dei socialism.

      • 3abas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        2 days ago

        Alright, so you’re a young gen z family and you buy your first home, which is all you can afford right now, you’re young and you’re starting your careers and your family.

        In 10 years, property values have increased dramatically, and you’ve had a child and you’re thinking about your second. Your careers are going well, and you think we should maybe get a bigger place for our expanding family. But oh no, there’s an unsustainable housing marketing bubble that refuses to burst, so you can’t afford a bigger place anywhere near your job. So you build UP, like they do in every multi-generational home culture, you expand your living space as your family expands.

        It’s not a crime or a moral failure to upgrade your home, and you shouldn’t jump at the opportunity to beat someone when they’re down just because you don’t empathize with this particular boomer homeowner.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          This Boomer homeowner is why those Gen Z families can’t find homes. If your single family home is worth $4 million, that is the market telling you that that single family home should not exist. The land is too in demand, too close to jobs, too close to amenities etc. to have that lot hoarded by a single selfish person. You want to live in a single family home on a quarter acre lot? Fine. Do it on the edge of the city where the land is cheap. This women’s lost could provide homes for a dozen families, at prices that would be affordable to Gen Z families. Instead people like her vote to prevent such redevelopment.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Based on the backstory, they kind of did what you said, bought it in a relatively more affordable context, and then the world changed their minds around them and retroactively declared it a multi million dollar property. Well at least for tax purposes and likely insurance, but not necessarily market rate (tax assessments commonly lag the market, so a market downturn could leave them with a multi-million dollar house that no one will pay the stated value for

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Well at least for tax purposes and likely insurance, but not necessarily market rate (tax assessments commonly lag the market, so a market downturn could leave them with a multi-million dollar house that no one will pay the stated value for

              More like the house is likely worth even more than the $4.4M it was assessed at. But nice try trying to spin your point to fit your narrative.

          • 3abas@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Are you okay?

            If your single family home is worth $4 million, that is the market telling you that that single family home should not exist.

            Right, an unsustainable bubble, I said that. This boomer family bought a reasonably sized and priced house that’s on the edge of the city, and now they’re forced to sell it and not be able to replace it with a bigger home on their budget in the same part of town, they didn’t fuck things up Zillow did!

            The gen z family who buys today won’t be about to upsize tomorrow, and you’re gonna blame them.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              The fuck-up was by the city, which failed to abolish the single-family zoning in order to allow the land to be developed to its highest and best use.

      • thedruid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Trumper logic, you don’t own what you own, and you need to either pay more or give it up., and fuck you us wanting nice things

        This is the type of shit destroying us as well.

        • thedruid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          See? Both sides are idiots( talking about political parties, not class)…

          We have people who want to take too much from us and people who don’t want to give, and both sides downvote truth.

          If we want a better country, we have to be honest, not selfish

    • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      They tried to apply the building code laws. In Florida, if you do a renovation and keep the foundation and one wall, you can build to the code at the time of construction. These “protections” never applied to assessment and tax.

      Many houses in that exact area have been bought for cheap and flipped using this work around. They end up with a modern house but can avoid having to spend extra for upgraded storm mitigation, plumbing, and electric.

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah that’s the same rule up here in Jersey. You can use it to maintain a structure that goes against the current building codes (say the ordinance makes it so you can have as much, you still can). To think that a tax collector wouldn’t be like “Hey, there’s an extra 1500 square feet, two bedrooms, and another bathroom on this house” is foolish though. And you presumably pulled permits for it all and put it right on their radar.

        The way to do it is piecemeal over several decades. Nobody is none the wiser.

    • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      3 days ago

      At the same time, that absolutely is a life altering change. Even the biggest idiots don’t deserve to get their life upended. I don’t know what the right solution is, but I can extend significant empathy to “I did a dumb thing and I don’t know how to keep my home now without uprooting it”.

      I’ve only bought one home and it was recently. It was every bit as aweful as I expected but having seen what they are in for, they might not have the cash around nessicary to sell the home without getting scammed by predatory buyers.

      The entirety of real estate is so fucked

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        85
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        A professional tax attorney built a $4.4M home and expected to keep their original valuation?

        That’s not a big idiot, that’s attempted tax fraud.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’ve only bought one home and it was recently. It was every bit as aweful as I expected

        I’ve now bought two in my lifetime. I wouldn’t call either awful for my experience.

        What was bad about yours?

        • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Lots of back and forth on inspection items. We wanted a lot fixed that should be fixed and they did do it as well as a lot of consolations, but if we had to sell this house right now, as I lost my job yesterday, I wouldn’t have the cash to be able to fix stuff that needs it for another inspection

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Lots of back and forth on inspection items. We wanted a lot fixed that should be fixed and they did do it as well as a lot of consolations,

            That’s fair. That’s pretty common, and it usually sounds worse than it is. I think its also about setting expectations. If you have the expectation that you’ll be looking at a perfect house and simply agree to the sale price, then you’ll be surprised/frustrated. If you’re prepared for that back and forth with the horse trading on what you’ll fix vs what you won’t (similar to buying a used car), then its not too bad.

            but if we had to sell this house right now, as I lost my job yesterday, I wouldn’t have the cash to be able to fix stuff that needs it for another inspection

            You aren’t required to fix anything as the seller, however your buyer can walk away if it doesn’t pass inspection. If you have lots of buyers, this can be the right choice sometimes. However, if you only have one buyer you’re going to have to compromise. The middle ground here is that you can lower the cost of the house to cover the costs of the items needed to pass inspection. Buyers will usually go for that. So even if you don’t have cash in hand to fix things, you can still sell.

        • zod000@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Every home purchase I’ve ever made was a terrible experience. I’m glad you had a better time.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          Even reading the summary - yes they had the Homestead Exemption to do exactlyy that. However they completely rebuilt their home to a much nicer one and thought they’d keep the Homestead Exemption. This worked correctly. In phase no sympathy for trying to cheat taxes

          • Photuris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            It would help if I’d actually read the article.

            A full night’s sleep, and I’m rethinking my comment. I was hasty.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          I agree, we should replace property taxes with very large income and wealth taxes. First we can end property taxes and then we can implement guaranteed income so people who become disabled can afford to maintain their homes.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            The thing about yearly property taxes is they often go to the city/municipality and that’s how they pay for things.

            The city doesn’t charge income tax, that’s a state/province/fed level type thing.

            We’d need a new way for cities to collect taxes themselves, or a new system to properly and fairly distribute taxes from the incomes to the cities/municipalities where they live.

            Definitely doable, but it’s a bit different than just raising income taxes.

            • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              My city charges income tax. As does the locality I actually live in. Plus property tax. Plus a School income tax on top of it…

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              Some municipalities may also have an income tax (completely separate from state or federal income taxes). Other states have much larger sales taxes.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Where I am we have fairly low property tax and a small municipal income tax. So it splits the burden equally. If you live outside of a municipality, there will be a small income tax to support your public school district. This is also on top of State taxes income taxes and Federal income taxes. Sales taxes are also a thing at the state and city level. Honestly, I don’t feel overly taxed with the total amount of money I pay in taxes. I receive the benefits of society. This is even for services I don’t consume, but I want the services available to my neighbors that may need them, such as housing assistance, elder care, supplemental nutrition, etc.

                  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    Ya, I’m not opposed to taxes, we gotta pay for the services somehow.

                    How do you actually do the income taxes though? Is it completely separate from your federal/state that get filed each year? Or is it somehow combined with those into 1 filing and the city gets paid yearly from that? It seems like it would be a huge burden to be a separate thing, and it would be easier if it was somehow incorporated into a federal/state tax system where if your municipality has taxes you fill out a few spots and the money gets sent to them?

                    E.g an added section on your state/federal to add the municipalities tax id and tax rate (as it’d be variable by area)

                    Edit: And like I get if you are getting payroll deductions its easy for the city to just withdraw off the top before you get it, but you still need the final tax filing to accommodate mistakes, or income not earned through a payroll system.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          If you’re old and no longer have much of an income, you still have your home. If you become disabled,

          We already have this is many states in the USA. Its called the “Homestead Exemption”. Here’s an example from Ohio:

          “This is a statewide program, administered by County Auditors under rules established by the Ohio Legislature and the Ohio Department of Taxation. This allows senior citizens (65 or older) as well as permanently and totally disabled homeowners to reduce their real estate taxes by the amount equal to the taxes that would otherwise be charged on $25,000 of the market value of an eligible taxpayer’s homestead or residence. The homestead may include up to one acre of land. Under the changes made by the Ohio Legislature and beginning with applications for tax year 2014, new participants in the program will be subject to an income test to be eligible.”

          So matter how big your house is (as long as its on one acre of land or less and you have an income $$75k/year or below) you only get charged as though the house is worth $25k, which I think would obviously be a very low tax bill.

          • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            They qualify under the local homestead law.
            But because that limits year over year increases (which I consider reasonable) and is reassessed after mayor upgrades (which they did) they now have a huge jump in taxes.

        • socsa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          This is incorrect. In China nobody owns a home. They get a lease on it from the government. For wealthy urban Chinese this has meant they get lifetime ownership so far, but this is not guaranteed.

          Also if you are not born with the correct hukou then you are not allowed to purchase any valuable property at all.

          • Photuris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ok, so, apparently, I don’t know what I’m talking about. I did watch one YouTube video though, and suddenly I felt like an expert on China.