Wow, I wish the market would force me to buy a million dollar house!
I don’t see what this has to do with the topic of the OP. If you just want to bash republicans, there are plenty of open pit threads for you to choose from.
IMHO, government spending is lower now that it would be if John Kerry had won the last election, or if congress was controlled by the liberals currently making up the Democratic party.
Believe me, I’m probably more outraged than you about the spending of the Republicans. It’s been shameful and a lot of us conservatives are pissed off about it. However, it’s still not as bad as it could be. Spending has been cut in lots of areas.
[/end hijack]
I can see your point that a million dollar house is not for the super wealthy on the west and east coasts. Where I grew up you can buy a 5000 sq foot home with 5 bedrooms that is under 20 years old for about 300-400k. That is a mansion, but 300-400k will only buy you a 700 sq ft studio apartment in san diego.
However, in the last 30-40 years most of the economic growth in the US has gone to the wealthy. I posted a link to the site once but my parents computer is crappy as hell and it’d take me 15 minutes to dig it up in the archives. Those in the wealthiest 20% of americans have experienced most of the economic growth in the last 20 years. And if a person/family can afford a million dollar home they are able to spend $5,000-10,000 a month on mortgages and still have enough left over for cars, food, and all other expenses.
I think it is fair because most of the economic growth in the last few decades has gone to people who can afford million dollar homes, so raising their taxes a bit is justified. That may not be a mansion, but if you can afford a million dollar home your household income is in the highest 5-10% of the american population.
The vast majority of tax money (at least 80%) goes to healthcare, education, the military, social security, interest on the national debt and law enforcement.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Incomes-More-UnequalSep02.htm
Here is a link somewhat like the one I was talking about. Those in the highest quintile have experienced real economic growth while those in the bottom three have not. Those in the fourth quintile (roughly 50-80k household income) have experienced some growth, but not tons.
Taxes have also gone up in the last 30 years, I don’t know how much though but I think from about 25% to 30% today. So has healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs while income has remained the same for many americans. Basically for most americans income is the same but taxes are higher, healthcare is more expensive, education is more expensive and housing is more expensive. It is unfair for those with stagnant incomes but higher expenses to take on extra taxes. Those who are getting the economic growth from living in a country where taxes pay for their education and protection should take on some of the tax responsibility.
Good, lord, it’s not like we’re looking at 300% taxes on packs of cigarettes. Taxes are not simply instituted to be a disincentive to behavior: we don’t tax rich people more in order to drive them into McJobs. It seems crystal clear to me that a modest tax rate – just about as modest as can be – placed on very expensive things seems to be the sine qua non of raising revenue from those who can most afford it.
On your comment that “we’re probably not taxing people who can afford it,” what on earth makes you conclude that?
And I simply have to dispute the notion that a million dollar house, even in San Francisco, is a dwelling that an average individual would live in. Such a place is priced at 40% above the median home price (which is ±$730k in SF), the mortgage on such a place would require what – 60 or 70 thousand in mortgage payments per year? And yet there is complaints about an extra 10 grand at closing or, more likely, another $10,000 being financed over 30 years? Holy cow, it is SO difficult to be in the upper 5 percent of income earners in this country!!
On fiveyearlurker’s question about why $1,000,000 houses should be subject to the tax: you have to draw the line somewhere. If I were drawing up such a policy, I’d index the imposition of the tax to median home prices, or something like that: for example, maybe all houses sold at 50% more than the median price have a 1/2% additional tax; houses sold at twice the median price have a 1% tax, and three times the median price have a 2% tax, or something like that.
And I have to dispute Wesley – these taxes would generally be imposed by localities, most certainly not the Federal government. Education generally takes up 25 to 40 percent of local spending, emergency services a slightly lesser proportion, and the remaining slice – roughly a third or so – would consist of social services, parks, libraries, transportation, and whathaveyou… like housing programs for people who are actually poor, for example.
Oh, and one last thing: fiveyearlurker, you’re getting tied around the axle on the term “mansion tax.” You’re taking it too literally. I find it very doubtful that the legislature in these places just decided, “Hey! We’re going to tax mansions! So how do we define a mansion?” It seems far more likely that the legislature decided to tax high-value homes, regardless of size, and the press started calling it a mansion tax.
What’s more, you seem to be pretending that taxing the value of one’s home is some extraordinary occurrance. I mean, this is just a property tax. The states of Florida, Texas, and several others depend on property taxes based upon the assessment of one’s home. Virtually every locality in the United States assesses property taxes. Your claim that taxes should be based on square footage, size of rooms, or whathaveyou is a tax policy that was at one time commonly used, but rejected when people started building houses to skirt those laws (eg, the “hidden second floors” of houses in colonial Williamsburg, VA).
The use of alternate measures like size or numbers of rooms would lead to just as many undesirable results (eg, luxury taxes on crackhouses that happen to be large), and, moreover, work contrary to your initial argument, because are you not in fact conceeding that wealthy people in desirable houses should pay more taxes? It seems you are just trying to find a way to exclude yourself from being characterized as a “wealthy person in a desirable house.”
Okay, so that was a pretty long “one last thing.” But still.
Not true. Plenty of people here in Massachusetts bought their houses years ago for fractions of what they are worth now. This brings us to another housing tax issue that is a problem. These people cannot afford to pay the taxes on the houses they grew up in because of the massively increased value.
So, Betty and Bobby Hypothetical buy a house for $50,000 outside of Boston with his modest salary in the 1970’s. Property values increase to the point that the house is now worth 1.5 million, so the hypotheticals now cannot afford the tax payments. They are retired and on a fixed income.
Now they have to sell and move because they are being taxed out of the state. Ya, lets hit them with another tax to punish them further. 
It’s stories like this that contribute to MA, NY and RI being the only three states to lose population this year. (MA was the only state to lose population last year, so this makes two consecutive years of flight for it.)
This is why I’m actually happy that NYC has a local income tax and relatively low (at least for the area) property taxes.
(I keep reading the title as, “Is the Manson Fax There?”)
Other than that, i have no comment.
And if this WERE the policy, I would find no complaints with it. But it isn’t. I think I’ve said since the beginning that the problem I have with it is that it puts a flat dollar amount which is indexed to nothing, is not adjusted for inflation, and remains unchanged regardless of the market forces.
So, in other words, I think, based on this, that we are actually in agreement.
Ya know, I wrote that last post, and then looked over the first page of posts again, and only then did I get a feeling that I had just agreed with you. So take that!! 
There are various western and eastern states that have extraordinary real estate prices, not just the three you listed. And the reasons for exodus could be more than just real estate, perhaps it is also job markets or something else.
The situation you are listing doesn’t apply to the mansion tax anyway because the mansion tax involves buying property. Besides, you are talking about a family that earned 1.45 million dollars on their home, which works out to about 50k a year in income from doing nothing but living. As Sven pointed out 50k is about the median household income, so they earned as much as a regular household by doing nothing. They are hardly victims. If I ever earn 1.45 million dollars by living somewhere I’m not going to feel bad if my taxes go up to claim some of that 1.45 million. That family can easily sell their home and buy a cheaper one with the equity.
What do you base this on? As a Republican, I have to concede the ugly truth - that for the last 25 years, Republicans have been outspending Democrats. We’re no longer the party of fiscal responsiblity. And the Democrats aren’t stepping up to the plate. So the United States no longer has any party that offers a realistic expectation of significantly reduced government spending. Which is why I say that the existence of government spending is something we have to face - and the question is how do we best pay for it?
Just for a complete picture of the taxes on the transfer of real estate in New York City, there are generally three transfer taxes that come into play: NYC Real Property Transfer Tax, NYS Real Estate Transfer Tax, and the “Mansion Tax” on residential real property of $1 million or more. In all cases, condominimum and co-op apartment are considered real estate and taxed at these rates.
The New York State transfer tax is 0.4 % of the purchase price, assessed on the seller.
The New York City transfer tax for residential property is 1.0% for property transfers where the consideration is less than $500,000 and 1.425% for transfers of more than $500,000. (Commercial property transfers are taxed at 1.425% for transfers of less than $500,000 and 2.625% for transfers above $500,000.) This tax is also assessed on the seller.
The “Mansion Tax” is 1% of the consideration for the sale of residential (1 to 4 family) property, assessed on the purchaser.
Many one bedroom apartments and some studios in Manhattan are going for over $500,000. Most three bedroom, many two bedroom and some one bedroom apartments in Manhattan are going for more than $1 million.
The mansion tax is a lot fairer than the rule of Nebraska’s homestead exemption
law which states that elderly low-income homeowners pay no property taxes until their property evaluations exceed $60K. Then, the full amount of property tax is charged.
Due to the real estate “bubble” a lot of old folks have been forced to sell out as their tax bills have suddenly gone from zero to $1600-2000.
In that many of these people could not afford their nursing homes or assisted-living facilities once they spent down their house proceeds, there has been a big jump in Medicaid expenditures for elder care.
Having the State re-imburse the counties, towns, school boards their" lost "property taxes at a rate of $1600–2000 per property owner was lots cheaper than the State’s picking up the tab for most of these people’s housing costs.
If a mansion tax supports a homestead exemption, it’s a good thing. If it supports higher salaries for politicians and their appointees; it’s bad.
If it goes toward Medicaid for people who could have deferred going to" the home" for another 5-10 years if only there were a decent homestead exemption program in place; again, bad.