I think I have a limited amount of empathy for the new homeless couple that’s about to have $4.4 million in the bank. -Rarely do cases of eminent domain go so well and unlike eminent domain, this was apparently their own doing.
Having your home valued at $4,400,000 is what most of us would call a nice problem to have.
Actually it’s a pretty bad problem to have. If you bought an affordable house at the time but gentrification comes for your area you suddenly can’t afford to live in the house you bought and despite whatever roots you’ve put down, now you have to try to migrate somewhere else.
Note that even if your tax assessment says you can get a few million out of your house, it’s likely not that easy, it can take a long time to find a buyer in the best of times, I imagine especially if you are seeking a buyer willing to pay millions…
It’s not as bad as renting in the same scenario, but it’s not great to suddenly have rich person cost of ownership come at you when you bought into a non rich person level house
It’s not so nice if you can’t afford to live in the home you own.
and its not even because you are wasting resources, like water for a large pool, but property tax/land value tax imposed on you.
I remember that last year pro-LVT people were very loud here on lemmy for some fucking unbelievable reason, and they were completely deaf to being called out that this will happen, that rich people will fuck you over in yet another major aspect of your life
So you were house rich but they never reassessed meaning last year you paid 15k on a 3.9m home nicw
Yeah people bitching about the property tax they now have to pay after not paying it for a long time should probably stfu and take the L or W or whatever it is
I’m not entirely unsympathetic since property values have skyrocketed ridiculously mostly due to the super rich and hedge funds buying up housing like it’s candy.
However, these people got an assessment for doing some renovations without replacing the walls or a major overhaul of the property, then promptly added a whole second floor to the building when they said they were just replacing the roof. They gambled that the assessors wouldn’t take note and lost.
yeah, and the guy was professionally working in the real estate space… feels like they are in the “find out” stage.
they should know better if they are building in a disaster prone area.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic since property values have skyrocketed ridiculously
Absolutely.
Where I live here in KC the county was sued over it, and the people won, and they’re still not going to get a reimbursement. Property tax assessments are insane, and millionaire or no, it’s exceedingly unfair and wrong.
Yet another example of how having one party ruling in Washington is screwing all of us over. There’s just largely no real recourse.
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.”
Boomer logic … “I want all the benefits, entitlements and supports of society and none of the responsibilities.”
Can you imagine the pain of having to pay fairly for what you own… Disgusting.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
lol, a basic slab on grade with edge thickeners with 2x4 walls can handle 3 story buildings.
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
They were trying to cheat their taxes and failed. Fuck em.
Won’t someone think of the poor multimillionaires?
deleted by creator
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
It would help if I’d actually read the article.
A full night’s sleep, and I’m rethinking my comment. I was hasty.
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.
Property tax is a wealth tax
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.
Some municipalities may also have an income tax (completely separate from state or federal income taxes). Other states have much larger sales taxes.
I pay a 1% income tax to my local government.
Interesting, I’ve never personally seen that.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Every home purchase I’ve ever made was a terrible experience. I’m glad you had a better time.
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
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.
Yearly property taxes never made sense to me. So you supposedly bought and own something, except if you don’t pay the government then they can just take it away.
House tax I understand, there is a finite limited of land.
Vehicle tax however can go fuck itself.
This is what is needed.
Gotta maintain the roads somehow. Vehicle and gas taxes mean that only those using the are paying.
I disagree, mostly due to i pay vehicle registration and tax when I buy it. VA does vehicle property tax, MD does not. How are they surviving?
update: so I just checked Virginia’s property tax rates and apparently we are one of the lowest in the country at like .76%. so maybe the vehicle property tax makes up for that since most states are just a bit under 1% at around .9. MD is higher, 1.02%
I think it would help if they called it something else also just to clear it up.
I’m surrounded by multimillion dollar homes and $100,000 cars on the road. Just feel like you’re getting fucked left and right all the time.
I disagree, mostly due to i pay vehicle registration and tax when I buy it.
then exactly that is what needs to go away, not vehicle tax, because this won’t fund road maintenance for however many years
The alternative is banks hoarding real state without any need to rent it out or sell it soon. They can just wait until prices get higher.
That’s why in most countries people pay way less property taxes in the house they live in.
maybe there is a middle ground? tax for the 3rd owned land, and increasing for any additional ones?
My property taxes, largely, go to support public schools.
I’m fine with that.
Doesn’t mean I should be exorbitantly overcharged.
Taxes are the price of civilization. You pay taxes on your land, because if you don’t, a gang of armed thugs will come and steal it from you and bury you under it.
In China 70% of the population pays no income tax, a very small sales tax, and there’s no property taxes at all. Who you tax is just as important as how much you tax. It is not necessary to tax everyone in a society to maintain a modern civilization.
Your leaving out a critical piece of information…
That you can own the building, but the property is on a 75 year lease that can be extended two times for under a hundred dollars for a total of 225 years of that home being in your family for less than the cost of a single years property tax anywhere in the US?
Lol
I see your point for general taxes, but if the federal and state government are already taking your income and many other things how come they’re also taking so much in property tax? Many other countries seem to be able to protect you and give you what you need without property tax.
Because collecting only one type of taxes would cause massive economic distortion and would inevitably burden people unequally. Different taxes have different properties. Some hit certain groups harder than others. Some hit certain types of businesses harder than others. Far better to have a whole series of modest taxes than one form of ruinous taxation. Do some countries not have property taxes? Yes, but they’re small tax havens that aren’t really a good model for the vast majority of nations.
But as far as optimization, consider some examples.
Property taxes also work best at the local level because the spending needs of municipalities don’t swing heavily with economic conditions. The federal government has spending needs that vary wildly with the economic cycle. During a recession, the federal government needs to massively ramp up its spending. But at a local level, a recession doesn’t mean you suddenly need twice the number of firefighters. Property taxes are pretty steady over time, so they’re a good match for the needs of local government. The federal government’s income tax revenue goes down during a recession, but that’s ultimately fine, as the federal government controls the currency. They can afford to sustain massive deficits during bad years and make it up with surpluses in the good years. (Well, if the federal government was functioning as designed.)
Income taxes also make more sense for government entities whose jurisdictions are difficult to avoid. If you fund your city entirely with income tax and no property taxes, you may find your community completely overrun by retirees who want services like anyone else, but don’t actually earn much taxable income to pay for them. If you fund your city entirely through a large sales tax, people can just drive and shop outside of city limits. It’s much harder for people to avoid federal income tax simply by moving house. Unless you’re leaving the country entirely, you’re not avoiding the reach of federal income taxes. (And sometimes even that doesn’t cut it!)
But property taxes? The only way to avoid those is to not live in the city at all. Which, from the city’s perspective, is fine. If you don’t live in the city, then you’re not putting much burden on the city’s infrastructure and services. But if you want to live in the city and enjoy all the benefits that come with living in a city, you have to pay the city’s property taxes.
In short, different taxes have different properties, different benefits and drawbacks. Funding a society through a diverse arrangement of taxes allows much more efficient optimization of these taxes. It’s a much more intelligent system than just trying to fund it all with one big dumb tax of a single type. That’s more the way of Medieval head taxes, not modern nation states. We used to have simple tax systems. We stopped using them because we realized there were better ways to do it.
China is a small tax haven?
I suppose they haven’t. But they are planning on doing so. And their lack of a property tax is a major reason their cities struggle financially.
Also, the key context here is that land in China is technically owned by the state. It’s leased out on very long term ground leases, but it’s all still owned by the state. In principle, the government doesn’t need to add another property tax, as it’s already leasing out the land. It would be like if a landlord also charged property tax to their tenants.
Most modern nations have higher taxes especially on the rich
I don’t know about where you live, but here the property taxes pay for the locality’s services: streets, parks, city employes salaries, snow removal, garbage removal, summer camp, community center, etc. So this taxe is very useful. Now, it needs to be well managed and it’s a whole other topic.
The alternative is much higher income tax.
They basically rebuilt their home and are sad it’s appraised at market value.
That’s at least what I got from it.
Debbie, who had worked for a real estate attorney for nearly 25 years
Lol, a real estate attorney didn’t see this coming? I feel sorry for any clients of hers.
She worked FOR a real estate attorney. And apparently learned nothing.
Fair enough, ya I misread that. But still!
Hahahahahahaha
Oh no, their taxes went up with the value of their property
🎻
How were they supposed to know real estate law being… checks notes…
a real estate attorney?
I was going to ask why they didn’t consult a real estate attorney. Apparently they didn’t have a good one…
Working for. That doesn’t mean paralegal. Reception, copy, courier, title clerk, mail room, etc
That’s a fair point. But at the very least it can be said she should have had the resources not to be surprised by this.
Maybe.
Not maybe. Definitely.
She “knew the taxes could go up some”, and they had the resources to basically build an entire house.
This is poor/no planning, and entitlement.
Reminds me of when some dumbass i worked with was ranting about owing the government too much money. Turns out he was borrowing from his 401k to do a home renovation. Which of the 1000 things you have to check as read and agreed didn’t clue you into the fact that you will be penalized for doing that?
Okay I know it’s not such a popular opinion but I’m still on the notion that you shouldn’t pay taxes for holding on to the place that you live.
Yeah yeah local governments need income and all that and their house is assessed over 4 million dollars and many people can’t even afford a home at a 10th of that and they should have known and blah blah blah but come on, commodified housing is bad enough. Paying what amounts to a rent to the state just to hold on to the property, actual repairs and upkeep and other naturally occurring costs aside is insane.
Tax the sales of property. Tax the legal transfer of control of LLCs that “own” property. I’m not even saying never charge property tax on properties not occupied by the owner, but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
What in the libertarian garbage is this? Do you like roads, schools, libraries, parks, garbage pickup, etc etc etc. Property taxes pay for these things.
But those things do not scale with the (alleged) value oft the property, but with things like property size, number oft occupants, curb length etc. Or could even be billed at actual cost (your garbage example).
Why do millionaires pay more taxes than minimum-wage workers?
Whatever answer you come up to my question can probably answer yours.
yet even if your family doesn’t use these services you benefit from safe roads, educated workers, green spaces for all to have access, and public sanitation - you LITERALLY BENEFIT FROM EVERYTHING but don’t want to pay.
But your taxes don’t scale with the alleged value of the property either. There are caps and protections in place. That’s why they were only paying $15k previously. And they didn’t just repair their old house, they put an entire second story on it. Hence the reason they triggered the “major improvements” clause.
I think you’re misunderstanding the post… He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that, since a property tax is basically a wealth tax on ordinary people because it is a tax on their single biggest asset.
He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that
Where do you want the revenue needed to fund the city to come from if not from property owners?
Workers. Employers. Commuters. Capital gains. Sales.
There are so many things you can tax, so many points where money moves from one set of hands to another where you can shave a little off the top. It’s just a bit absurd to me that we will shake people down for money for just having a home that an assessor figures could sell for some particular amount of money.
Tax Other Stuff
No. Those things are paid for by other taxes and service fees.
Tax the sales of property.
I’m thinking of the untended consequences of that policy. The first I can think of is people simply would never sell their houses because they’d get hit with enormous taxes (large enough to equal decades of property taxes). Home owners would simply rent out the houses when they need/want to move away. So home ownership for those living in the homes would collapse. Further, city services would likely starve from lack of funding because there would be no little revenue and what revenue they got would be very sporadic.
but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
There are absolutely houses like that (in the USA at least). Those houses not in cities with police and fire protection, roads, sidewalks, snow plowing, public libraries, or any other kind of city services. If you want the benefits of a society someone has to pay the bill. Alternatively, some cities have income taxes or very high sales tax. Both of which you’d pay to live in the city.
Who are you suggesting paying the bill for your consumption of city services besides you?
I still think citizens should pay the bill for their services, but tax should be on the basis of income, and wealthier people should pay more to cover for those who can’t. And why not income, the money you actually bring in, and not a portion the money your home would theoretically sell for if you sold it? The point at which to take tax is the point of transfer, whether it’s labor for a wage or a change of ownership (sales and inheritance).
I absolutely don’t believe that people would be less likely to sell their property because they might have to pay a percentage of the profits from the sale. And if they were less likely to sell it, who cares? Take the money from the excess houses when they die. I think I also mentioned that I’m not principally against taxes on non-resident property (which is essentially abandoned or a business asset if not owner occupied). I’m also not against rent controls.
Like God forbid one recognize that certain approaches to taxation are problematic, it must mean you’re a conservative who’s against government services.
My alternate take. This is a prime example of why housing shouldn’t be viewed as an investment. If the value of a home outstrips the rate that wages increase then isn’t this story always the logical conclusion?
Eventually no one will be able to afford a house not merely because they can’t buy it in the first place, but because even if they inherit it they can’t keep up with the tax bill because on paper it’s worth 8 times what their parents paid even inflation adjusted. I’m not even making those proportions up, that’s about the change in cost in my neighborhood I think.
Why not tax the property for all value above X. Where X is some amount over the average or median property value. That way, if you can afford a luxury home you pay some tax on it.
It’s not a bad compromise, it’s just a matter of finding a good value for X. And that’s hard to do as housing prices continue to balloon and housing costs take up a greater percentage of people’s incomes. Houses that would have cost one year’s income in the 60s can easily cost 8 to 10 times that today.
I don’t know, maybe you should have to pay property taxes if the land occupies more than a certain square footage. That could discourage suburban style development and promote greater population density, which could both act as a net positive.
Yeah, the devil would be in the details, of course, and to make sure there aren’t any obvious loopholes. Ideally it would be at increasing brackets as well.
Wouldn’t taxes on above-X value keep prices down? Buying fancy houses as investment could be countered by the additional running expense of taxes.
Basing it on square footage could also work, or as an additional parameter, but might make more sense in cities where space is more scarce.
Problem I see with price based rather than square footage is that it’s going to vary by location and generation. A human being, or a family even, needs a certain amount of space, and beyond that there is some threshold across which one could say this family or person is undoubtedly taking up more than they actually need.
For example, how much housing does a family of 5 people reasonably expect if living a middle class lifestyle in America? I think that’s something that changes generationally and regionally based on income and housing costs, but today I think such a family might expect ideally a house with five bedrooms, two or three baths, a kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, maybe also a den or other secondary communal room. I’m not saying all houses should be this big, or shouldn’t be bigger, but that a house about this big could be a fair measuring stick for determining how much square footage a house could reasonably be without the owner-occupant paying property taxes.
Or it could be based on the number of kitchens. If a house is cut up into apartments as an investment strategy, it has to have more than one kitchen generally speaking.
For price based limits I just don’t see how you avoid artificial inflation of assessments by governments or planned neglect by owners to keep houses on one side or the other of the threshold. It would also have very different impacts on different markets. And inflation and changes in the market would require whatever threshold you set to be revised fairly regularly or else fade into irrelevance.
Yeah, I agree it’s always harder to define than it seems at first glance. Square footage might be a better proxy with fewer loopholes. Problem is that a shitty rundown house will be taxed the same as a luxury house of the same size. That might be fine, I don’t know.
I think regardless of how you do it, taxes need to be adjusted for inflation or change of average living costs, like any tax brackets could/would. I think one of the goal should be to avoid artificially inflated living costs.
And also regardless of approach, tax limits should probably also depend on how many people live in the house. That can probably be abused too though.
Either way, I don’t know much about economy and taxes, this is just me thinking out loud on a complex topic.
Land Value Tax would solve this.
Also they live in Florida where there is no income tax so got to tax something.
basically what happens when you create and support a housing system whose goal is to make profit. doesnt matter if you yourself plan on living in it, people voted for the system that approved the nonsense of longterm profiteering of a basic need.
It’s always funny when looking at the tax-system in the US from an EU perspective. Americans looking at any receipt they get in an EU country and immediately pointing out the huge VAT tariff.
Then one only needs to point to the property tax in the US.
Sales taxes are regressive. People who spend more money on services and less on goods are typically wealthier. Sales taxes hit the poor the hardest. Whereas the property tax on a multi unit building is typically a better rate for each family than a single family home.
If you read the article these people tried to abuse a loophole that had kept their propery taxes capped for years and they failed miserably. They tried to keep just enough of the home to avoid the value of the home being reassessed for taxes. But they added an entire second story and that triggered the reassessment. Essentially they thought they could cheat and build more home than they could afford to pay for.
True they abused the system. That wasn’t my point, which is that these high property taxes have a tendency to give high quality services to affluent neighbourhoods and low cost housing get low quality services.
Which country doesn’t charge VAT on services?
Some US states don’t have sales taxes
If you hire a nanny do you pay VAT?
Not sure over here in Germany. Plenty of services are exempted from VAT.
The EU has standardized what is tax exempt though. You can read everything which falls under VAT here. The word “service” appears 472 times by the way.
These states in the US have zero sales tax: NH, OR, AK, DE, MT
America also has sales tax
You’d think a real estate attorney would know better.
Anyway, property –with the improvements they made, has appreciated over $163,000 on average every year since they bought it. Ya, $75k more than they planned on sucks, but they can take it from the value of the house no?
I don’t know. I mean, there’s a good chance that the original purchase price of the house is almost paid off, but having a sudden $76,000 increase in your bills is going to be tough on anybody. Unless they have made some very bad financial decisions outside of this, that probably is more than double their monthly mortgage.
And as somebody who has an inordinate amount of equity in a house they purchased far too recently for the amount of equity that I have, it is not exactly easy to pull money out of a house as a homeowner, And even if they do take loans to pay the tax burden, that doesn’t mean that the money has been handled. It just has taken today’s problem and pushed it off for tomorrow.
I’m not attempting to justify them. I’m just examining their side with the slightest benefit of the doubt.
They just did an expensive Reno…. None of your comment makes any logic given that they just did an expensive Reno, they could afford to throw money around.
Maybe, maybe not.
Renovation loans exist, and are often secured against the property (backed by the increased value or against equity).
So there’s a real possibility that they only increased their debt and monthly expenses without having the liquid capital for the unexpected tax payments
Sucks to suck if that’s the case. If they truly couldn’t afford this, they should have been more diligent about researching the potential ramifications of making these renovations. That goes even more so for someone with experience in the field of real property.
