jennypenny, this is what I see in my area also, but then the builders complain that the market is bad???? Maybe if they built reasonable homes the maket would be good.
Why the anti home buying sentiment?
Seneca, yeah, it is completely illogical to fund programs designed to keep old folks in homes that are too big for them. They should be in smaller, more manageable places where they are nearer to the help they need.
And on the other end of the spectrum we have idiotic programs to encourage starter-homes. In a few years those same buyers have to move-up to a bigger/better home and restart the amortization on a new loan. Throw in a refinance or job relocation we have buyers who never becomes owners. They end up in perpetual debt - which is the real goal of these programs - a lifetime of paying interest rather than earning it on savings.
And on the other end of the spectrum we have idiotic programs to encourage starter-homes. In a few years those same buyers have to move-up to a bigger/better home and restart the amortization on a new loan. Throw in a refinance or job relocation we have buyers who never becomes owners. They end up in perpetual debt - which is the real goal of these programs - a lifetime of paying interest rather than earning it on savings.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
"Seneca, yeah, it is completely illogical to fund programs designed to keep old folks in homes that are too big for them. They should be in smaller, more manageable places where they are nearer to the help they need."
I'm uncomfortable with the thought of the government dictating where old people can or should live. I always thought that the property tax policies were more designed to let them stay in their current homes--i.e., promoting stasis over enforcing change.
I'm uncomfortable with the thought of the government dictating where old people can or should live. I always thought that the property tax policies were more designed to let them stay in their current homes--i.e., promoting stasis over enforcing change.
Promoting stasis over enforcing change... well, no, not exactly. Promoting stasis while delaying necessary change... yes.
Wouldn't it make sense to reassess property values ever year and charge taxes evenly to everyone? Otherwise it's just another transfer of wealth from young to old, right?
Meals on Wheels, Senior Independent Living, Elder Care,.... there are many government funded and quasi-government programs designed to keep seniors in their homes. No doubt there is value in keeping people out of assisted-living or nursing-homes facilities as they are much more expensive.
But publicly funded program that provide a cleaner and home health aid to a single senior who is living in the same five-bedroom home where they reared their family is counterproductive. Use the wealth tied up in the home to pay for that care rather than having the government fund it, no?
Wouldn't it make sense to reassess property values ever year and charge taxes evenly to everyone? Otherwise it's just another transfer of wealth from young to old, right?
Meals on Wheels, Senior Independent Living, Elder Care,.... there are many government funded and quasi-government programs designed to keep seniors in their homes. No doubt there is value in keeping people out of assisted-living or nursing-homes facilities as they are much more expensive.
But publicly funded program that provide a cleaner and home health aid to a single senior who is living in the same five-bedroom home where they reared their family is counterproductive. Use the wealth tied up in the home to pay for that care rather than having the government fund it, no?
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Ego, I admit that I acknowledge the logic of what you're saying, but at the end of the day I just can't bring myself to supporting anything that forces the elderly to do something they don't want to do. I'm also worried about the slippery slope of exactly how far the elderly should be pushed into nursing homes by the government. I'm far from a "no death panels" tea partier, but still.
I am not for forceful relocation of the elderly. If they can afford the rising price of their tax base (for the non-wealthy, say by utilizing their property more efficiently letting out rooms or multigenerational living arrangements), let them stay. What I am against is forcing young people to effectively pay old people to keep them out of the housing market near the productive areas where they need the workers.
In California you have the elderly living alone in multi-million dollar 5 bedroom houses in the urban areas that need the workers. They are paying a pittance of property tax for due to Prop 13. This reduces supply for young people, and naturally increases price. (not to mention changed the funding for schools from local to centralized, another one of the disasters the young pay for in Cali) The Peninsula of the SF Bay Area has a particular problem; when these same oldsters were young, they put together laws/restrictions such that less than half of the land in San Mateo County is open to housing development. Double whammy.
What we ended up with is young families moving to San Jose and Morgan Hill, and even Hollister. These lead to 45min-2hr each way commutes. The costs of forcefully keeping the elderly in these family homes, and disincentivizing them from efficiently using their properties with tax cuts, is tremendous.
EDIT-
If you want an example of how distorted the market has become:
Median income Palo Alto- $120,000/yr
Median home price Palo Alto- $1,600,000
For the outlying "younger" commuter community:
Median income Morgan Hill- $90,000/yr
Median home price Morgan Hill- $500,000
This doesn't include the fact MH houses are much bigger on average than those in PA...
In California you have the elderly living alone in multi-million dollar 5 bedroom houses in the urban areas that need the workers. They are paying a pittance of property tax for due to Prop 13. This reduces supply for young people, and naturally increases price. (not to mention changed the funding for schools from local to centralized, another one of the disasters the young pay for in Cali) The Peninsula of the SF Bay Area has a particular problem; when these same oldsters were young, they put together laws/restrictions such that less than half of the land in San Mateo County is open to housing development. Double whammy.
What we ended up with is young families moving to San Jose and Morgan Hill, and even Hollister. These lead to 45min-2hr each way commutes. The costs of forcefully keeping the elderly in these family homes, and disincentivizing them from efficiently using their properties with tax cuts, is tremendous.
EDIT-
If you want an example of how distorted the market has become:
Median income Palo Alto- $120,000/yr
Median home price Palo Alto- $1,600,000
For the outlying "younger" commuter community:
Median income Morgan Hill- $90,000/yr
Median home price Morgan Hill- $500,000
This doesn't include the fact MH houses are much bigger on average than those in PA...