It's still a pain. And once you bought a house, you might like to think of it as an unmovable good (literally, in many languages). Now your cash flow doesn't permit you to live there.

Also, with low/zero IR, PV of tax payments is infinite, it's not like increasing house price is offsetting that.

I mean, you're basically arguing against property taxes. Sure, property taxes are a "pain", but so are all taxes. But yes, that's literally how property taxes work -- you don't get to live somewhere infinitely long without paying property taxes.

In practical terms though, property taxes aren't infinite -- they're only for as long as you're alive. And you can realize your increasing house price while you're alive too (or your kids can). And I know people who have come out very much ahead in that equation in certain gentrifying areas, e.g. turning a $30K investment in 1985 into an $8M sale in 2020.

So within reasonable "non-infinite" time frames, an increasing house price can be very, very, very much offsetting property taxes. That's just a fact.

> I mean, you're basically arguing against property taxes.

Not really. You’re saying it is no issue that tax goes up proportionally to house value, I’m saying it is much more onerous than, say, your income tax increasing with income.

Also, if the end objective is “pay tax to local government and make it so that wealthier people pay more”, there are tons of ways of doing it without this anti-feature. Slice of income tax, tax depending on property size (not price) etc.

That was a joke, right?

Why is it a joke? Your property value went up significantly, you are in fact a winner. Why should you get to shirk your responsibility to your community?

re-pasting from an earlier comment of mine:

I say it is unjust for a fixed income senior citizen or disability insurance recipient to have their property tax base grow to a point where they must flee their home of decades. The callus answer is to force the person to sell and take their gains and move so a younger person with higher wages can afford their once-home. I think it is unjust to remove an older, less abled, and less employment-opportunitied person from their environment.

You seem to have missed my original comment.

Any senior citizen who owns their home (mortgage all or mostly paid off) can take out whatever size mortgage necessary to pay property taxes. Since it's backed by the house's larger value itself.

Who's making them "flee their home"...? That would only happen if it's already mortgaged to the hilt, but then they're already on the verge of losing it anyways.

They could take an loan against the unrealized gain on their asset if they'd like to continue living there. If they'd rather sell and keep the cash, that's their choice. Letting them both keep the windfall and shortchange their community doesn't make sense.

In addition, California (and I suspect other states) have a means tested property tax postponement program that allows low income homeowners to defer taxes until they move out, sell, refinance, or die as a substitute for obtaining a private loan.