this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
135 points (97.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43394 readers
1558 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Let’s say that you buy a home in cash and have 100% paid off. Could you still lose it somehow?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] happytobehere@lemmy.world 156 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If you don’t pay your taxes, yes

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 25 points 9 months ago

HoA fees

Eminent domain but they will pay you "market value"

Being force into a sale due to investor taking over a condo building

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Property taxes of most primary dwellings should not be a thing.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is how you get subscription-only fire departments.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Commerce and wealth-based taxes (income, sales, capital gains, etc) are sufficient to cover any and all social needs. Taxing people on their own possessions - especially those critical to living - is beyond unethical, it is evil.

A property tax on a primary dwelling residence is unethical because it is not attached to any act of commerce. It is your home. It is your family's life and legacy. Property taxes do not care whether the owners are billionaires or do not have a penny to their name, so they harm the middle class and the poor while it's little more than an afterthought for the wealthy. Case in point: Hawaiians who are forced to sell their ancestral homes because they cannot afford property tax... because the "value" of their ancestral land is constantly and steadily increased by wealthy interlopers. This is just plain, old-fashioned banditry and theft - nothing more and nothing less... and if you advocate for it or justify it, you advocate for evil.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aelwero@lemmy.world 76 points 9 months ago (2 children)

My property tax is $1200 a year. Failure to pay that for a while (a year or three) could result in the state selling the house, keeping the overdue taxes, and paying me the rest (if there is any. Sometimes they get sold cheap).

The state can also buy my house from me under eminent domain, to put in a rail line, or power lines, or some other utility. They'd owe me "fair value" for it, but they basically determine what that means, and it could be significantly less than what i could sell it in the market for (but to be fair, taxes are based on "fair value", and almost everyone quietly allows the state to low-ball their property value because of this).

It can also be condemned. If it's egregiously not maintained and shows obvious signs of structural issues, or the property gets hoarded up and looks like a trash dump. This is much more common with commercial property.

There's also civil asset forfeiture. If you're manufacturing and/or selling drugs/weapons/etc. (as a random example. Any crime counts really) on a property, it can be seized outright with no requisite compensation at all.

HOAs ar often described as similar to asset forfeiture, but they're closer to a tax siezure. The HOA has to have in its charter that they can fine members for rule violations, and the process for an HOA is the same as for overdue taxes, but with unpaid fines. The authority for HOA is entirely contractual, you have to sign a contract agreeing to those rules.

All of these are incredibly rare occurrences, and usually involve some sort of genesis, like an investor wants a specific property, neighbors hate someone, etc.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Back in the neighborhood I grew up in, we actually had a drug house that was taken by civil asset forfeiture. They had an RV/trailer (IDK which it was) in their driveway that people would go into for drug related shit and at one point a vehicle was set on fire in the middle of the night, probably to destroy the evidence it was stolen. I'm glad the drug selling scum were taken care of, especially since there were kids on the block.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] calypsopub@lemmy.world 62 points 9 months ago (12 children)

Yes. It happened to my friends. They both lost their jobs and couldn't pay the property tax on their fully paid-off house, so it was foreclosed and auctioned off.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

There's also eminent domain and HOA's

Eminent domain has been used a lot in the past to target minority groups.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 32 points 9 months ago (4 children)

One thing to keep in mind is that in the US, there's very few people or companies that actually own the land that they're on. Most of the time you have the rights to use the land for certain types of things, but not actually own it. The US government (federal on down) has various ways of seizing property for its own purposes.

There's only a handful of people who actually own the land they live on. Most of them were granted the land by prior governments (mostly Spain) before the US was a country. Their ownership was grandfathered in and has passed via inheritance through the families. Several of those family plots are in Texas and Florida. Everyone else is just allowed to stay as long as they play ball with the rules.

[–] zzzz@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

Do you have more info on those that actually own? Sounds interesting.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

To certain extents, I think the government has rights of expropriation of land in other countries too. Sometimes you can sue the government for it too. It's a messy biz.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You can get eminent domain'd or your house could be destroyed by natural disaster, house fire, etc.

[–] basic_spud@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In theory, in the case of eminent domain you get the value of your home paid. In practice... its often not enough to actually buy a similar house.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

You get a government set rate for the house, not what it could sell for on the open market.

[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

Yep, you only think you own your home after it's paid off. Try missing a single property tax.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Theoretically eminent domain still exists but it’s only used to replace black neighborhoods with highways

[–] grue@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Not true! It's also used to seize property from existing owners in order to hand it off to private developers (see Kelo v. New London).

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

But when we want passenger rail we have to buy the land at full price as set by the landowner no matter how much they’re gouging

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago

Absolutely. You have to pay taxes on your property (in most states; there may be exceptions that I'm not aware of). If you don't pay your taxes for a long enough period of time, your property will be seized and auctioned off. Starting bids on property auctions are usually the back taxes; in less desirable areas--such as undeveloped land that with no utilities that's out in the middle of nowhere--that may be all it costs.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

A common way that I don't see mentioned here is that it is common to take out a loan using your home as collateral, something like a major business loan not panning out or a mismanaged personal loan can absolutely end up letting the bank seize your house to pay off the loan.

[–] DampSquid@feddit.uk 16 points 9 months ago

You can be shot by the cops, in your bed, while asleep. Yes I think you can lose your paid-off house.

[–] NoiseInTheVoid_444@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

There are typically property taxes you have to pay every year, unless exempt

[–] Rockyrikoko@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago

This was the whole premise of Happy Gilmore. He became a pro golfer to save his grandma's house

[–] Steve@startrek.website 14 points 9 months ago
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes, if a large meteor landed on it, it would probably be destroyed.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

I sell meteor insurance btw. DM me.

[–] ForestOrca@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

Let's not forget sink holes. :-D

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I used to see stories in the legaladvice subreddit regularly about Housing Owner Associations putting legitimate liens on properties for not following the rules. Even when the rules were as ridiculous as "air-conditioning unit can't be visible from the street" or "only these specific plants can be grown and your lawn cannot exceed a few inches in height and must always be green" or "internal curtains must be pink or white".

For a culture that prides itself on its freedoms, the miniature authoritarian regimes that HOAs embody are a great example of the evidence not matching the story.

[–] Kid_Thunder@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

HOAs started as a way to keep neighborhoods white only. Now it's a way for developers to have a super majority vote to keep giving themselves contracts and a way for control freaks to control their neighbors. They started as bad actors and now some are bad actors for other reasons.

Not all HOAs are terrible but there aren't a lot of actual accountability in-spite of some laws to stop corruption and there's not a ton of benefits for most except perhaps for condos.

For example, I wouldn't mind having an HOA that contracts rates for trash, lawn care, creates and maintains a park with some stuff for kids, maintains beautification of non-homeowner areas and maybe even has security patrols. You know, actual amenities to keep the neighborhood nice and convenient for the home owners. Not an HOA that makes sure that shampoo bottles in people's bathroom windows aren't visible, front doors have to match some aesthetic or have to approve decks and sheds for people's yards.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] basic_spud@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

Amen.. never buy a house in a HOA if you plan to actually keep and payoff said house. Even if its a "good one", they can and do change. All it takes is a vote for your $50/mo HOA to become $1000+/mo because they want to build a golf course or do custom street signs and a pool or whatever.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Every country pretty much. Lawsuit. Don't pay taxes. Owe money to someone personally. You don't get to hide your assets behind a home and get into financial trouble in other areas.

This is also why homeowners typically live within the law. Too much to loose.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί