undefined | Better HN

0 points0xFACEFEED3y ago0 comments

The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home?

It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in that home.

0 comments

librish3y ago

Yes that's the idea? They get to live out the rest of their years, and then their heirs pay the deferred taxes, selling the house if needed.

eropple3y ago

This is a bad situation if you want long-term neighborhood and cultural cohesion, though, because it encourages turnover (particularly among less affluent groups).

refurb3y ago

I mean if people can defer taxes until they die you’re not increasing turnover at all.

1 more reply

jonas213y ago

Yes, that's the point of postponing the taxes. The retiree can live out their remaining life in the home, and the taxes are due when their heirs inherit it.

0xFACEFEEDOP3y ago

Yea I guess that makes sense. Although inheritance is a change of ownership and the new owner would see the home re-assessed, no?

The other issue I see is that the deferment program is limited to very low income seniors (< $35k year or something like that). That's pretty low for a lot of places in the Bay Area which means not being able to go on road trips and do whatever it is seniors do in their twilight years.

jdeibele3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

"1986 Proposition 58

Proposition 58 allowed homeowners to transfer their principal residence to children without a property tax re-assessment, as well as the first $1 million (not indexed to inflation) in assessed value of other real property."

Of course if the homeowner has more than one child it could get messy

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse