For many states property taxes are the majority of funding for public schools. If that’s the case for the pictured person, the sign could also read:
“I got my public education for free from age 5-18 funded from others paying property taxes including learning how to read and write to make this sign you’re reading. Now that I’ve received that free public education and benefited from it, I’m not interested in paying for any kids to be educated using my dollars. F you, I got mine.”
We could also just pay for education differently.
I love the “but it pays for schools” argument, like how about we drop 3 less bombs per year and just pay for all the schools out of the existing tax pool like it should be.
I agree with the sentiment but to put some numbers into perspective we spend about 850 Billion a year on K-12 education. The US military budget is about 850 Billion. Now I would fully support switching about 200 Billion of that and throwing it at the most underfunded schools in the country. Another source would be police budgets. Police are massively overfunded and take most of a local region’s money. So we could easily grab some of that funding too.
Generally wealth transfer taxes should be higher though, so buying houses (especially second and third houses or out of state houses), buying vehicles over the “budget” category (ballpark 35K these days?), any boat that’s not a primary residence or a 10 foot fishing boat, etc etc… This idea that anything other than income tax should affect everyone equally is pretty ridiculous, as is the idea that the only way to tax wealth is to tax stocks.
Until we do, we can’t stop the current funding source. Feel free to present your argument on your proposed alternate method.
Have the rich actually pay taxes. Use that.
If you’re actually serious, you have to do better than that for an answer. How are you going to tax them? What are you going to tax them on? Who is considered rich?
It’s as fine tuned a proposal as, “tax property”.
“Tax property” has finely enumerated rules completely spelled out in the letter of the law in hundreds of different variations across many states and cities. You can certainly disagree with it, but its a fully formed and executed system that is funding many schools today.
What you’ve got so far in this discussion is “stop what is currently in place and make someone else pay somehow”. Thats not even fully formed thought much less an argument that can be defended. Your first statement, and now this follow up tell me you’re really interested (capable?) of proposing a better alternative.
I’m not going to “finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations” for you.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I’m not serious is not serious.
Yes and. How most of the US funds their school system is super fucked up. Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers. This translates to much more equal levels of education, regardless of how wealthy a given neighborhood may be. I was shocked to find out that schools are paid for by catchment area taxes in must of the states - it makes the history of redlining so obvious when the is literally a “wing side of the tracks”.
Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province
Property tax is the mechanism through which the taxes are gathered, but funding is through the province. This is very different than how allocation happens in most states, where schools are directly funded by their catchment area.
Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers.
So the source is the provincial government, but in that system where is the province deriving the revenue to pay for schools? What is being taxed by the province to bring in the money it uses to fund schools?
Property taxes is the answer
property tax is more equitable than sales tax because it is based on wealth instead of consumption.
Using property tax to fund education simply leaves poor areas poor and uneducated.
Now if they restructured it so the property tax went to the state level and was distributed to those schools that needed it most, not those schools that were in proximity of the land, I’d be for it.
It’s this way by design
that is true.
It’s based on wealth that matters for rich people. For the average person it’s extremely regressive. We’re telling people that they must sell and move if they aren’t rich enough. There are better ways to tax people and assets in the 21st century.
And progressive tax rates collected at the state level distributed based on student density and district need are better than both options.
Eh, probably paid like 25k for a house that’s worth 500k now or something. Really what we need to do is make property taxes scale more aggressively, so it isn’t economical to hoard more resources than you can actually use. Maybe something like annual tax owed = (value of all real estate owned by one person)^2/10,000,000. Perhaps with a grace period for new construction/renovations.
As for appraisal, let people declare what their property is worth, and force them to sell if someone offers 20% more than their claimed value.
I really like the self appraisal idea
As for appraisal, let people declare what their property is worth, and force them to sell if someone offers 20% more than their claimed value.
Ah yes, force people to move out of their homes. What’s lemmy’s obsession with uprooting families lately?
Land is a natural resource, and like air or sunlight, nobody deserves to own it more than anybody else.
“But my family has live here for generations!” sounds awful similar to “I deserve it because my great great grandfather killed the people that used to live here.”
You get to decide how much the land is worth to you. If you value it honestly and somebody else values it higher, a trade benefits both of you.
I value your home more than you, now get the fuck out and find a new one.
In fact going by your first sentence, this system isn’t even necessary. Why do you deserve to live where you do just because you paid some random person money? I deserve the land you’re living on just as much as you do.
Money represents things you do deserve, like the value created by your own work, as well as things you have no moral claim to, like natural resources. What makes sense to me is that the land is owned collectively. The property taxes are effectively rent to the rest of the population, and those that consider it most valuable should get to use it. I also think there should be separate taxes for things that devalue the land, like extracting minerals. You can still make a profit from extracting minerals based on the value added by your own work, but you need to pay the rest of humanity for their share of the minerals themselves.
Have to consider both the ideal and the existing situation for the best next step. Housing is a combination of value both created by human effort, and an accumulation of natural resources. I think what I’ve proposed is a big step towards fair allocation of housing, but critically, also something that could actually be implemented.
money represents things you do deserve
Of course that means capitalists are the most deserving of all.
Has nothing to do with “uprooting families”. Average American families are not the ones grossly overestimating the values of their property. It’s people like Trump who use overestimated values on their properties in order to hide money and grift people into paying him more than properties are actually worth. And then readjusting to actual values, or lower, in order to dodge taxes.
Edit: my reply was not an endorsement of OP’s property assessment plan. I was only speaking to our frustration with the rich who hoard wealth in the form of land and use overinflated valuations of their property to increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else. And even though OP’s idea is flawed there is merit in the idea of altering the way property value is determined.
Yeah but under this system you’d HAVE to overestimate, otherwise it gets forcibly bought from you.
This is just going to drive prices way up till everyone is renting from one of 3 giant corpos.
Socialise the housing market and make sure every person has a roof over their head. It’s the only proven solution to homelessness.
Investment company comes in and buys literally everything because they can just offer 20% over value. Now they rent it out for twice as much as your mortgage cost. What are you going to do, not like there are any other houses left.
Think about what the investment company’s tax rate would look like. They’d be bankrupt instantly. They’d have to pay 10M/year in taxes to maintain ownership of $10M in property.
Sounds like a problem for the renters.
They can just increase rents then?
So rent is several times more expensive than a mortgage on the same property. Now what?
Now you pay the ridiculous rent because blackstone just buys up entire neighborhoods already, might as well buy up entire towns.
Why? You can force them to sell you a property and pay less on the mortgage than they pay on the same property on taxes.
Technically yes, but the problem is that they can afford to hold their investments in many small companies so they won’t even have to pay that much tax.
Just adding government oversight for this idea is going to be a costly nightmare.
That’s not how this works. A better solution would be to tax more aggressively second+ homes and severely limit what corporations can invest into.
Why should a company be able to profit off of second hand housing? This isn’t a commodity, but it’s treated as such. Companies should be able to build new housing (for sale) and own housing only for the purposes of, say, housing their employees if they so wish. I simply see no benefits to allowing companies trade living spaces like stocks.
What does someone deserve to own? The value created by your own work yes, but nobody deserves to own natural resources like land more than anybody else. The whole point is that you get to decide how much the property is worth to you. If it’s worth more to someone else, you’re both better off for the trade. The only losers here are people trying to cheat on their taxes by giving a “low” appraisal, and people trying to hoard multiple properties.
Plug some numbers into that formula. If you own a $100k property, you pay 1k in taxes/year If you own 10 of those properties, you pay 100k/year. This would mean you have to charge more in rent than a mortgage would cost to buy the same property. The business model would become unprofitable.
I understand the logic of it, my point is that this is a trust/honesty based system which leaves you cornered. Here are some problems with it:
- placing a low value on my house to pay less taxes exposes me to a hostile buyout
- placing a realistic (e.g. around average for the region) price doesn’t solve the previous problem. I’m still in danger of a hostile buyout, while also paying higher taxes. What’s more, even if everyone else plays fairly, this additional % someone else paid to take my house is now the minimum added on top of their own valuation, driving prices up.
- placing an unreachably high price would bankrupt me as I can’t pay the taxes, so there is no scenario in which this works out for me
- given a realistic and unequal economy, there will be those who can’t afford to place a higher price on their house, i can just go and buy them out on sale, then rent them back to them (that one might sound familiar)
The fault in your assumption is 1. that this would discourage corporations from buying up; and 2. That you live in an equal and just society;
The fault in your assumption is 1. that this would discourage corporations from buying up;
Did you plug in some numbers to see how much you pay when you own multiple homes? Rental units are not profitable when people can buy a house for cheaper than your property taxes on the same property. And normal people can do hostile buyouts from corporate landords too.
I wish someone had told me this 4 years ago…
So property tax I am ok with, in theory. The people with property in a city should pay for services like fire, schools, police, road maintenance… What gets me is when the city wants more and more for stupid shit like iPads for all students… Every 3 years due to forced upgrades or just old style deprecation over 3 years.
The amount my taxes go up each year is more than any raise I get. Then add on insurance which has gone insane. I paid off my house to avoid a 20k female flood insurance bill because a 1 foot piece of concrete touched a high risk flood zone. A technicality because if I took down a screen patio, then I wouldn’t have to pay.
It’s insane how expensive owning a house has become
I paid off my house to avoid a 20k female flood insurance bill
Female flood sounds interesting
While I do think there should be some relief for some people as far as property taxes are concerned… living in a town or city gives a person access to many local government subsided services. Firefighters, and ambulances are some simple ones that everyone uses. Roads as well. And the cost of that does increase over time. Basing a person’s contributions to paying for that based on the value of thier property is just easier for local governments, and more stable. But it doesn’t really corelate with the use of those services. Nor with income or ability to pay.
Life necessities really shouldn’t be taxed at most levels. Food, shelter, water, heat, medical care. Most already aren’t. But housing still is. Investment properties should be taxed of course, but an average primary residence really shouldn’t be.Looking at my electrical bill is depressing. It’s always power used x and then taxes that are the same as x plus fees. So using $100 in electricity means I pay $220 with over half being taxes and extra fees
Yeah, and property taxes result in more low density housing, as that increases the amount of tax revenue per person. High density housing means less revenue per person but the costs of services per person is still about the same. Sure theoretically, public transit is cheaper per person with high density housing, but realistically it isn’t because nobody gives a shit about public transit in the suburbs.
Of course there’s more costs overall because more suburbs mean governments are pressured to spend insane amounts of money on building and expanding highways. But it’s usually a different level of government that builds the highways, so doesn’t factor in the decisions to create more low density housing.
I’ve read otherwise on the costs of services per person and density. A fire station can only reasonably cover a certain amount of space. So low density housing means you need more fire stations for the same amount of people. And of course you need more road per person in general.
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.
That’s the part that upsets me the most. If you save up the money to fix up your house, the gov charges you more for it. How aggregating. Makes me not want to “own” property.
Depending on area 40k property tax means a 3-4M house. Poor rich people!
The house was about 180 when they bought it, then climbed in value over time to the point they had to move due to taxes. The combination of city, county, 2 separate MUDs, school, ESD, health district, and other taxes didn’t help either.
The school taxes alone were nearly 2% of the value of their home. When your home quaruples in valueshoppingthe area around you gets ritzy, that adds up.
Where the fuck did they live? What was the home value and tax rate? That’s insane.
It’s really not that crazy in some areas.
They had municipal taxes, county taxes, school district taxes (when massive school bonds pass every single year without fail that one can really add up), emergency service district taxes, Water District taxes, Healthcare District taxes.
That shit adds up when the value of your property doubles every 3 years like it has been doing in Texas.
No, $40k/yr in property taxes is insane unless your parents own several mansions, even for Texas where the highest property tax rates are around 2.5%. Even if you tack on millages and bonds and other things there’s no way it gets near that.
There’s a lot of bad takes and clear misinformation from disaffected people in this thread. Stuff like this should be obvious.
For the city. Then double the city rate for the school district, then add some more for the MUDs and the County and the Health district and the Emergency services district. Shit adds up fast, and when you buy a house new for 180 grand and a few years later it’s valued at 700 grand, you have to move because you can no longer afford to pay the taxes.
This isn’t a discussion on property tax, it’s more about social security. There is no reason we cannot scale taxes/fines to income. Many countries pull this off…
We would need to make sure all loopholes are closed for wealthy people just using investments to harvest losses… Trump only needed to pay $750 in taxes on his “taxable” income one year.
bUt tHeN nO oNe wOuLd bE iNcEnTiViSeD tO wOrK oR bEcOmE wEaLtHy
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.
The government gets to decide how much the government is allowed to fuck you. Seems fair.
Theoretically, in a democracy, we ARE the government.
And this is why in most civilized countries, progressive income taxes make up the majority of the government budget. Basing taxes on non income/investment related metrics screws over the poor + lower middle class. It’s a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Why have taxes based on income when you can tax accumulated capital instead?
If you try to take too many eggs out of 1 basket, the person carrying that basket is likely to try and run away. So it’s easier and less disruptive to take a few eggs out of lots of different baskets.
Taxing accumulated capital without exceptions is also guaranteed to screw people over. The man in the OP is a good example: he’s a modest man who many years ago bought a modest house for a modest sum of money. Due to circumstances, that house has now increased in value, making him a wealthy man on paper. But he’s deriving no income from that wealth, since he can’t rent it out because he lives in it himself. So now he’s a modest man, who is rich on paper, who is expected to pay high taxes on his paper wealth, turning him into a poor man who is barely scraping by.
Taxing liquid capital is fairly straightforward, especially if it’s tied to income (like company founders owning shares).
Taxing non-liquid assets is complicated because it’s hard to make it fair in cases of family home inheritance and similar situations.
But taxing use of assets as collateral for loans (to create liquidity from a non-liquid asset) should be reasonably fair, it can be treated as an advance on capital gains taxes on the collateralized asset.
But taxing use of assets as collateral for loans (to create liquidity from a non-liquid asset) should be reasonably fair, it can be treated as an advance on capital gains taxes on the collateralized asset.
Just worth repeating
This doesn’t fit the narrative, but a lot of American states have lower effective property tax rates than European nations. There exceptions on both ends of this of course (like TX which is making up for a lack of income taxes).
People should look them up and compare European nations to major us cities and states. Europe ends up with not only higher income taxes, but also higher property taxes overall. And a completely insane financing method like having adjustable rate mortgages being normal, locked only for a period of 3 to 5 years before basically being forced to refinance. Little wonder that property ownership rates are generally so far below american ownership rates.
No system is perfect and people with means tend to find every flaw in them (and plant those flaws if they are wealthy enough). But people really need to remember that the grass is always greener because of all the manure.
And that man clearly does not live in such a state, nor did I (or anyone else I think) claim that his circumstances apply to the entire usa. You’re wrong in assuming that other people are not aware that different places have varying laws and tax systems.
Your whataboutism defence of regressive tax systems is also very strange to me. That other places have unfair practices in place, is no excuse to put up with an unfair system in any one place. Call them all out on their brokeness, but if you do call them out, you’ll have to be more specific in your example(s), state things that are actually verifiable instead of some vague whataboutism.
Ps, while I did not think your whataboutism defence was relevant, this “Little wonder that property ownership rates are generally so far below american ownership rates.” was easy to verify and it turned out to be false. Home ownership rates are on average slightly higher in Europe than in the usa, here’s statistics: https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
you could have progressive taxes on wealth as well. there’s a difference between having one house worth 500k and having 500 million in shares
True, you just need to make sure you start high enough up, or exempt the value of a primary residence (maybe limit the exemption to a non-opulent value of a house so the richest don’t start building castles to bind their money tax free)
UK has property taxes too and its pretty shit tbh. Council tax, there are bands based on what your house was worth in the 90s (yes really…) and generally the poor will pay a higher % of their income. I have a pretty small bungalow, 60m². One of the lowest bands and pay £1600 a year on a house that cost £230k. The most you can have to pay is £4200, beyond that point regardless of how much more expensive your house is the tax rate doesn’t increase.
The original plan of the tax was a fixed rate per person. This among other things is why many people were keen on the idea of digging a hole so deep that we could hand Thatcher over to Satan personally.
That has to be the most regressive tax I’ve heard of in western Europe. Absolutely excessive and I’m sorry it’s happening to you.
Belgium has a home value tax as well, based on fictional rental income + a very convoluted calculation + different % surcharges per council. I find back that it’s on average about 700 to 800 euros per Flemish adult person, but it has large variations. It causes a lot of grumbling, but for most people it’s not considered excessive.
I can’t even afford a dingy studio where I’m at… tf
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.
Which induces a lot of absentee landlordism, as property is held in trust and financialized rather than being bought/sold at the retail level.
Right, that’s a huge downside for sure.
Property tax is on the one hand a wealth tax, which sounds like a great idea; but on the other hand, it’s a wealth tax that disproportionately affects people with the bulk of their assets tied up in real estate — which often means middle class homeowners.
So while you can certainly look at prop 13 as “good” in that folks don’t get priced out of their existing homes, it of course gets used to the advantage of rent seekers, etc.
It’s…complicated.
Property tax is on the one hand a wealth tax, which sounds like a great idea;
The problem is in how its assessed. A market-based tax will be vulnerable to market manipulation. A tax accessed by the agents of lobbyists and kleptocrats will be administered to the benefit of their patrons.
This isn’t a policy failure quite so much as it is a democratic failure.
Yeah, without being a policy junkie I think a reasonable step would be to have Prop 13 only apply to primary residence — investment real estate would be subject to a “wealth tax,” but folks wouldn’t get priced out of their primary home due to gentrification.
Prop 13 should also not apply to inherited houses. It’s creating a class of landed gentry who were lucky enough to have parents living near the housing boom, and pricing out anyone who moved here in the last 20 years.
Do the American thing and chuck it in the harbor until the taxes stop
If tea is to tea party, are you suggesting that we throw a house party?
Property tax hurts landlords and I’m here for that.
What did this guy pay for his house, like 20k?
Surely this man would be in favor of a greater and graduated state income tax then, right?
…right?
Yeah, that guy could sell his house for 5 times what he built it for
And then where is going to afford to buy another house to live in?
Maybe he should stop eating avocado toast
😂
5? I bought my house a decade ago and it has almost doubled. If he built his house for less than his current property taxes, he would easily get 10x if not higher.
the sign says that property tax each year is a third of his original house cost. Assume he lives in a place with insane 15% property tax:
x*0.15*3=1
x=3*6
x=18His house is worth 18x or more what he paid to build it.
