To be fair this dude could have gotten his house 45 years ago for 50K. So adjusting for inflation and overall development of his area, it could make sense. Comparing current payments to cost of money 40 years ago is comparing apples to oranges.

Now all that being said....there is a serious issue with cost and availability of housing, and I am not dismissing that. I'm just saying context is needed for this ragebait post.

I was wondering if the US is property taxes were like 33%/year but it said original value, so I'm guessing it was dirt cheap then

California disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

Property tax is assessed when there's a sale, and otherwise changes very slowly. It's a controversial measure.

That's the thing about increasing home prices nobody talks about. It increases the "value" of your home, so you're taked more.

When my parents retired, they didn't move out to the country to get away from the city life. They did it because it saved them 40 grand a year in property taxes.

I don't know his situation but I think primary residence up to certain value shouldn't be taxed at all. There's a huge difference between an old man living alone in a house he had built for his family 60 years ago and an "investor" who owns entire neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, where I live a property tax on as far as I remember 4th and all above residential properties has been proposed and people who oppose it the most are pensioners who live in the only property they own. Right wing media can just outright lie to people telling them the tax is going to be on every property and people go on vote against their own interests.

How big is his house? How much is it worth now?

How much did he pay for the land it sits on? Or did he inherit that?

Who does he think maintains road networks and all the other infrastructure he relies on?

I see both arguments for this as valid. I get that you wanna stay and live your entire life in the place you owned forever. The reality is taxes are needed and will increase forever, which are important to keeping your state functioning (as long as the people in charge are doing a good job and actually using the funds wisely). I wonder what state they are from because I know property tax can be wildly different depending upon that. I'm sure they don't want to, but there are like 6 states that currently offer no property tax to seniors over 65 and 10 that offer exemptions based on income and age. At the same time it is good to see them complain because maybe they can try to sway the state to also offer the no property tax benefit to seniors as well. Still if he is hurting that much, then it's probably easier to sell the place and move to another place that will allow him to be better off with less worrying. It's a valid option even if he doesn't agree with it.

Property tax rates are based on how much your city/county needs to operate. Property values change, but so do mill rates. Most cities aren't allowed to take surplus tax, so they tweak the mill rate when property values fluctuate.