If Grandpa rents that apartment instead of owning it, he'd if anything stand to benefit (especially if we tax land value specifically and not the building).

My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving. Moves are a pretty big pain in the ass in your 20s and 30s, but doing the process of finding a new apartment and physically moving are much harder at that age. And then you move to somewhere cheaper because the whole point is you can't afford the city anymore, but now you need to find all new doctors (many 90 year olds have multiple doctors they see regularly), figure out how to see family (perhaps you remained in your old place because your family lived nearby), get to the grocery store (you're 90... you likely can't drive). It's not practical.

> My point is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds are not really capable of moving.

And mine is that a lot of (and maybe most) 90 year olds wouldn't need to move. The ones who would be motivated to move are also largely the ones who are wealthy enough to do so.

Grandfathering until the chickens come to roost hasn't helped the vulnerable either, yet that same party largely consists of individuals proposing that solution to the vulnerable.

It's cruel, but that same cruelty is deemed acceptable towards 'have nots'.

> other people can't afford it despite working for a living?

He bought the house by working for a living. The "fuck 'em, give me his house" argument isn't convincing me.

Because 90 year old grandpa can't move as easily as us youngins and it's not his fault that the neighborhood gentrified around him. At this point he can't afford to the taxes on a studio either. But anyway, the process of moving is really pretty tough at that age, even the logistics of finding a new apartment and hiring movers. Now, you move out to the suburbs because you can't afford the city anymore, but you don't drive because you are 90, so it isn't so easy to buy groceries anymore. You gotta find a new ophthalmologist, cardiologist and primary care doctor instead of seeing the folks you've been going to for the last 10 years.

Maybe 65 is too young for retirement age, but I certainly feel that there is an age at which old people should start getting special privileges, like the right to not have to move. And the rest of us can wait our turns and hope that we get to take advantage of those privileges some day.

First, grandpa will have to move eventually. 90 year olds in Ukraine got caught up in a war they had nothing to do with and had to move.

Second, if the neighborhood gentrified around grandpa, his house value has gone up - he can sell at a good profit and use the money for his retirement as he wishes.

Third - consider the counterfactual renter who was living in the same place and working just like grandpa, but had to move at the age of 60 because he couldn't afford the rent anymore. Why does grandpa get to stay but the other person, who is a renter with the same life story get forced out of the neighborhood?

Just to be clear, though:

Grandpa has a senior exemption that reduces his property tax, and if he is also low-income he also gets a senior tax freeze that keeps his taxes low enough to pay them. If his health was failing and things were really, really tight money-wise he could apply to not pay his taxes at all and instead put a lien on his property that gets paid when he passes and the kids sell it.

High taxes don't have to be cruel. The real question is - what are they doing with the money? Are you getting a good value from your taxes? I mean, everyone knows that these governments are wasteful. But they are still spending the money on things. It's happening. Do you get any value from that?

I just moved out of Chicago last year. I am not going to claim that Chicago is well run or a model of efficiency. But they have a lot of programs that they spend money on. The library system in Chicago is incredible. It is undeniably world class. Where I live now, youth hockey costs $500 for a session. In Chicago, it was $175 - with better coaches and the random NHL player showing up to show how to do drills and such. Piano lessons cost twice as much. The list goes on. But you know, grandpa is probably not taking piano lessons or playing hockey. So maybe he's not getting the best deal. I don't know.

> 90 year olds in Ukraine got caught up in a war they had nothing to do with and had to move.

I don't think this is a good example of why all grandpas will have to move eventually. We're not in a world war, at least not officially, and certainly not at all points in history.

Would you apply that argument to other property besides land/houses?

For instance suppose when Grandpa was a young man in 1950 he bought a used 1940 Martin D-45 guitar for a little under $400. That's equivalent to around $4800 in today's money.

He's still got that guitar and has kept it in good shape. Vintage D-45s from 1942 and earlier go for insane amounts on the collector market, and he could sell that for over $100k, probably over $150k.

Why should Grandpa have the privilege of owning a vintage 1940 Martin D-45 as long as he wants when so many other people who would like to play a vintage D-45 cannot afford too despite being working musicians?

Should we therefore have a periodic instrument value tax on musical instruments to keep people from keeping their instruments too long? Grandpa can sell the vintage D-45 and use a fraction of the proceeds to buy a new acoustic guitar or even hire a luthier to build him a custom guitar so its not like having to give up his 1940 D-45 would keep him from having a guitar.

> I'm not sure anyone deserves the privilege to live where they want as long as they want.

You'll grow older and possibly understand. There are things that must be experienced, they can't be learned in any other way.

Great! I'd like to experience living until old age and owning a tax advantaged two bedroom in Manhattan that has appreciated wildly through no effort of my own. Where do I sign up?