Okay I know it’s not such a popular opinion but I’m still on the notion that you shouldn’t pay taxes for holding on to the place that you live.
Yeah yeah local governments need income and all that and their house is assessed over 4 million dollars and many people can’t even afford a home at a 10th of that and they should have known and blah blah blah but come on, commodified housing is bad enough. Paying what amounts to a rent to the state just to hold on to the property, actual repairs and upkeep and other naturally occurring costs aside is insane.
Tax the sales of property. Tax the legal transfer of control of LLCs that “own” property. I’m not even saying never charge property tax on properties not occupied by the owner, but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
My alternate take. This is a prime example of why housing shouldn’t be viewed as an investment. If the value of a home outstrips the rate that wages increase then isn’t this story always the logical conclusion?
What in the libertarian garbage is this? Do you like roads, schools, libraries, parks, garbage pickup, etc etc etc. Property taxes pay for these things.
I think you’re misunderstanding the post… He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that, since a property tax is basically a wealth tax on ordinary people because it is a tax on their single biggest asset.
He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that
Where do you want the revenue needed to fund the city to come from if not from property owners?
But those things do not scale with the (alleged) value oft the property, but with things like property size, number oft occupants, curb length etc. Or could even be billed at actual cost (your garbage example).
But your taxes don’t scale with the alleged value of the property either. There are caps and protections in place. That’s why they were only paying $15k previously. And they didn’t just repair their old house, they put an entire second story on it. Hence the reason they triggered the “major improvements” clause.
yet even if your family doesn’t use these services you benefit from safe roads, educated workers, green spaces for all to have access, and public sanitation - you LITERALLY BENEFIT FROM EVERYTHING but don’t want to pay.
Why not tax the property for all value above X. Where X is some amount over the average or median property value. That way, if you can afford a luxury home you pay some tax on it.
What home steading a home was supposed to be for. I remember in Texas you could homestead up to 10 arces and not have to pay taxes on that. I totally agree. At the very least taxes shouldn’t go up just because the value did. Only time your taxes should go up unless you sell the home, then tax you that amount.
This is similar to the property tax structure in California.
You get a property tax rate on the purchase price, then it only goes up 2% a year or inflation (whichever is lower).
It makes it pretty impossible to be taxed out of your house. It has downsides though because it applies to commercial real estate and landlord properties as well.
You’re planning to tax on events like sales and hope there’s enough churn to still fully-fund the things property tax provides for? That’s really hard to make a case for.
Given bungalows rarely deliver a town enough to recoup on providing and maintaining services anyway, you’re starting with a very tricky goal to maintain. Detroit happened, and that was with consistent, recurring payments.
Then you want to put a home sales tax on that is big enough to pay the back taxes plus borrowing cost to hold the debt and you think people are gonna go for this? What if you’ve owned your home 15 years, paid no taxes on the infrastructure maintenance, ambulance fire or police service, mail service, street lights and pavement, and then your house burns down? You could very well owe more than the lot is worth alone. What do we tell the homeowner about that? The town can’t absorb the loss given margins are so low.
Nah. I don’t think you can sell that idea to the voters.
I’m thinking of the untended consequences of that policy. The first I can think of is people simply would never sell their houses because they’d get hit with enormous taxes (large enough to equal decades of property taxes). Home owners would simply rent out the houses when they need/want to move away. So home ownership for those living in the homes would collapse. Further, city services would likely starve from lack of funding because there would be no little revenue and what revenue they got would be very sporadic.
but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
There are absolutely houses like that (in the USA at least). Those houses not in cities with police and fire protection, roads, sidewalks, snow plowing, public libraries, or any other kind of city services. If you want the benefits of a society someone has to pay the bill. Alternatively, some cities have income taxes or very high sales tax. Both of which you’d pay to live in the city.
Who are you suggesting paying the bill for your consumption of city services besides you?
Okay I know it’s not such a popular opinion but I’m still on the notion that you shouldn’t pay taxes for holding on to the place that you live.
Yeah yeah local governments need income and all that and their house is assessed over 4 million dollars and many people can’t even afford a home at a 10th of that and they should have known and blah blah blah but come on, commodified housing is bad enough. Paying what amounts to a rent to the state just to hold on to the property, actual repairs and upkeep and other naturally occurring costs aside is insane.
Tax the sales of property. Tax the legal transfer of control of LLCs that “own” property. I’m not even saying never charge property tax on properties not occupied by the owner, but you should be able to have a house to live in without paying the state for the privilege of them not taking it.
My alternate take. This is a prime example of why housing shouldn’t be viewed as an investment. If the value of a home outstrips the rate that wages increase then isn’t this story always the logical conclusion?
What in the libertarian garbage is this? Do you like roads, schools, libraries, parks, garbage pickup, etc etc etc. Property taxes pay for these things.
I think you’re misunderstanding the post… He’s saying property taxes are a necessary source of government revenue (that we all benefit from) but you shouldn’t have to pay it if it’s a primary residence and there should be a different structure or revenue stream. I agree with that, since a property tax is basically a wealth tax on ordinary people because it is a tax on their single biggest asset.
Where do you want the revenue needed to fund the city to come from if not from property owners?
No. Those things are paid for by other taxes and service fees.
But those things do not scale with the (alleged) value oft the property, but with things like property size, number oft occupants, curb length etc. Or could even be billed at actual cost (your garbage example).
But your taxes don’t scale with the alleged value of the property either. There are caps and protections in place. That’s why they were only paying $15k previously. And they didn’t just repair their old house, they put an entire second story on it. Hence the reason they triggered the “major improvements” clause.
yet even if your family doesn’t use these services you benefit from safe roads, educated workers, green spaces for all to have access, and public sanitation - you LITERALLY BENEFIT FROM EVERYTHING but don’t want to pay.
Why not tax the property for all value above X. Where X is some amount over the average or median property value. That way, if you can afford a luxury home you pay some tax on it.
What home steading a home was supposed to be for. I remember in Texas you could homestead up to 10 arces and not have to pay taxes on that. I totally agree. At the very least taxes shouldn’t go up just because the value did. Only time your taxes should go up unless you sell the home, then tax you that amount.
This is similar to the property tax structure in California.
You get a property tax rate on the purchase price, then it only goes up 2% a year or inflation (whichever is lower).
It makes it pretty impossible to be taxed out of your house. It has downsides though because it applies to commercial real estate and landlord properties as well.
You’re planning to tax on events like sales and hope there’s enough churn to still fully-fund the things property tax provides for? That’s really hard to make a case for.
Given bungalows rarely deliver a town enough to recoup on providing and maintaining services anyway, you’re starting with a very tricky goal to maintain. Detroit happened, and that was with consistent, recurring payments.
Then you want to put a home sales tax on that is big enough to pay the back taxes plus borrowing cost to hold the debt and you think people are gonna go for this? What if you’ve owned your home 15 years, paid no taxes on the infrastructure maintenance, ambulance fire or police service, mail service, street lights and pavement, and then your house burns down? You could very well owe more than the lot is worth alone. What do we tell the homeowner about that? The town can’t absorb the loss given margins are so low.
Nah. I don’t think you can sell that idea to the voters.
I’m thinking of the untended consequences of that policy. The first I can think of is people simply would never sell their houses because they’d get hit with enormous taxes (large enough to equal decades of property taxes). Home owners would simply rent out the houses when they need/want to move away. So home ownership for those living in the homes would collapse. Further, city services would likely starve from lack of funding because there would be no little revenue and what revenue they got would be very sporadic.
There are absolutely houses like that (in the USA at least). Those houses not in cities with police and fire protection, roads, sidewalks, snow plowing, public libraries, or any other kind of city services. If you want the benefits of a society someone has to pay the bill. Alternatively, some cities have income taxes or very high sales tax. Both of which you’d pay to live in the city.
Who are you suggesting paying the bill for your consumption of city services besides you?