>> That is already how property tax works, except in California.
Not in Michigan (where Detroir is). The rate of increase on property taxes is capped, so if prices go up quickly your tax doesn't. It gets reset to market if you sell.
The most valuable thing you can have for retirement is a home free and clear. Incentives to disrupt that in favor of what others think is a "better use" are very un-American IMHO.
The main reason the California system is a disaster is that long-time owners are grandfathered and pay very little tax, meaning there's no incentive for these people to support more housing.
In other words, if California actually did kick out homeowners for their neighborhood getting too popular, it would have been much less of a disaster.
Why would old people be homeless? The cause of them being forced out is that they own an immensely valuable asset but live on relatively little income. That asset would then presumably be sold for cash. Any house expensive enough to create this situation would also give them enough hard cash to live out the rest of their lives in relative comfort.
This is essentially a relatively benign form of eminent domain, which has the same consequences without the implication of a good financial outcome.
They wouldn't be homeless if they already owned property. Even before Proposition 13 the median house price-median income ratio was higher in California than elsewhere, around 4 while the rest of the country was at 3. So they could do what many people do in old age, they sell their house for a large sum and move somewhere cheaper.
It was true that before Proposition 13 many older homeowners who could not keep up with rising taxes were forced to sell. But taxes were rising because house prices were rising, so they were able to sell at a nice gain.
I think most people agree that the California system is a disaster.
Prop 15, a modest modification to Prop 13 that wouldn't have affected homeowners, just commercial property, failed. Removing Prop 13 protections for homeowners would be much less popular.
Maybe people in California do think the system is a disaster, but they like it and don't seem to want to change it.
It doesn't work that way in almost all jurisdictions.
Either current residents are protected from property tax increases, or property taxes can be deferred until sale or death and the estate pays them (common in many jurisdictions).
>> I think most people agree that the California system is a disaster.
And yet it is immensely popular. Why do you think that is?
I believe it's because rather than thinking home owners are evil rent seeking capitalists, most are hard working people who bought a house and think it's fair that the government not tax them out of it.
