Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8369866" data-attributes="member: 6701124">I don't think I assumed that.  Which one of my cases made it seem so?  I can try to clarifyIn the case with a house purchased for 1X and now worth 6X, the current way most places work is to have it taxed based on 6X (or something trailing that but going up every reassessment cycle).  The proposal I was commenting on would have them pay taxes on 1X.  Say they own their house (so only payments are tax on 1X, insurance on 6X, and utilities) want to move to a similar house somewhere else.  (To simplify, assume no realtor fees). They would now need to pay tax on 6X, insurance on 6X, and utilities.  If the tax rate is bad, they're getting it all now.  I can imagine the tax on 5X more keeping someone from being able to move.I have no problem with the person who just wants to spend the last of their days paying 1X in property tax to stay there.  But I'm not sure why their kids should inherit the 6X house without having to pay back all the years of tax on 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6X the neighbors who moved in later had to pay.The proposal has the person in their mid 50s near maximum earnings with the kids out of the house living somewhere for only property tax on 1X while the new family that moved in to a similar house is paying property tax on 6X with lower earnings. I'm not sure why the well off 50 year old needs to pay less.</blockquote>