I see your point for general taxes, but if the federal and state government are already taking your income and many other things how come they’re also taking so much in property tax? Many other countries seem to be able to protect you and give you what you need without property tax.
Because collecting only one type of taxes would cause massive economic distortion and would inevitably burden people unequally. Different taxes have different properties. Some hit certain groups harder than others. Some hit certain types of businesses harder than others. Far better to have a whole series of modest taxes than one form of ruinous taxation. Do some countries not have property taxes? Yes, but they’re small tax havens that aren’t really a good model for the vast majority of nations.
But as far as optimization, consider some examples.
Property taxes also work best at the local level because the spending needs of municipalities don’t swing heavily with economic conditions. The federal government has spending needs that vary wildly with the economic cycle. During a recession, the federal government needs to massively ramp up its spending. But at a local level, a recession doesn’t mean you suddenly need twice the number of firefighters. Property taxes are pretty steady over time, so they’re a good match for the needs of local government. The federal government’s income tax revenue goes down during a recession, but that’s ultimately fine, as the federal government controls the currency. They can afford to sustain massive deficits during bad years and make it up with surpluses in the good years. (Well, if the federal government was functioning as designed.)
Income taxes also make more sense for government entities whose jurisdictions are difficult to avoid. If you fund your city entirely with income tax and no property taxes, you may find your community completely overrun by retirees who want services like anyone else, but don’t actually earn much taxable income to pay for them. If you fund your city entirely through a large sales tax, people can just drive and shop outside of city limits. It’s much harder for people to avoid federal income tax simply by moving house. Unless you’re leaving the country entirely, you’re not avoiding the reach of federal income taxes. (And sometimes even that doesn’t cut it!)
But property taxes? The only way to avoid those is to not live in the city at all. Which, from the city’s perspective, is fine. If you don’t live in the city, then you’re not putting much burden on the city’s infrastructure and services. But if you want to live in the city and enjoy all the benefits that come with living in a city, you have to pay the city’s property taxes.
In short, different taxes have different properties, different benefits and drawbacks. Funding a society through a diverse arrangement of taxes allows much more efficient optimization of these taxes. It’s a much more intelligent system than just trying to fund it all with one big dumb tax of a single type. That’s more the way of Medieval head taxes, not modern nation states. We used to have simple tax systems. We stopped using them because we realized there were better ways to do it.
Like almost every issue, property taxes aren’t a binary issue - it’s not a matter of either having them or not having them. There’s the sub-issue of how the rates are set. Simply tying property taxes to home value isn’t fair, because the burden a person puts on city services doesn’t increase just because the perceived value of their home rises. You don’t actually receive any of that value until you sell your house and leave, but you’re taxed on it anyway. Being taxed when you sell the house would make perfect sense to me, because that’s when you actually reap the benefits.
The argument that people in high-priced neighborhoods are rich and can afford or deserve to pay higher property taxes is unrealistic. Recent newcomers, yes, but not people who bought homes when they were still cheap because the area wasn’t so desirable. Those people are no different from people who buy cheap houses today, they just did it a long time ago. But they get charged premium rates because the perceived value of their home increased. That way of assessing property taxes isn’t fair, it’s just bureaucratically easy.
I think property tax should be heavily weighted by the original price you paid for your house, and should go up with inflation and the cost of services. It should not be flatly tied to the price you would get for your house if you hypothetically sold it.
Simply tying property taxes to home value isn’t fair, because the burden a person puts on city services doesn’t increase just because the perceived value of their home rises.
It depends how much home value correlates to house size and lot size. A $1M 1500 sqft bungalow on a 1/4 acre lot in a gentrified neighborhood may not burden city services more than a $100k 1500 sqft bungalow on a 1/4 acre lot in a bad neighborhood, but a $1M McMansion on a 2-acre lot on the edge of the city absolutely will. That’s because the cost of city services scales with things like increasing the length of pavement and sewer pipe across the lot frontage and decreasing the number of homes emergency services can reach within a reasonable distance/time from the station.
Yes, you an come up with edge cases like McMansions next to golf courses, but houses on identical lots right next to each other can have different values and pay different property taxes even though they take the same amount of city services. Remodeling a house, or even just painting it frequently and keeping the yard nicer than others, doesn’t make you consume more city services, but it will raise the home’s assessed value and property taxes. That’s a false link.
Putting a second story on likely includes increasing the number of bedrooms, which theoretically increases the number of people who could be living there and thus increase the burden on city services. Renovating for quality and building additions to the square footage aren’t equivalent.
I think lot sizes are still a much bigger factor, though: a house renovated/rebuilt to max out the allowed FAR (floor-area ratio) on a 1/4 acre lot still ought to get taxed less than a modest-sized house on a 2-acre lot.
You don’t have to remodel. Just living in an area that becomes more desirable makes your home value go up, and your taxes go up in step with that. I’m not talking about inflation, I’m talking about areas taking turns being the trendy place to live. Just because you’ve been there for a long time, you pay the same tax on the house you paid $100k for as somebody who buys the house next door for $500k, because their willingness to do that makes your house worth $500 too.
I think property tax should be heavily weighted by the original price you paid for your house, and should go up with inflation and the cost of services. It should not be flatly tied to the price you would get for your house if you hypothetically sold it.
That is how you end up with California, where the old generations get wealthy, and the young generations are driven out of the state completely.
Uhhh no… the value of your house is what somebody might buy it for IF YOU SOLD IT. Until you actually do sell it, you don’t get that money or “make money in real estate”. As I said, taxing you at the point where you sell the house would make sense to me - because that’s when you’re actually getting money. The way property taxes are now, people are being taxed on money they might hypothetically get in the future.
Now it’s true that you can borrow against your home value - this is known as a home equity loan or a line of credit. So you potentially have that available - but even that is not “making money in real estate”, it’s borrowing money that you have to pay back.
Now it’s true that you can borrow against your home value - this is known as a home equity loan or a line of credit.
That is literally how every billionaire funds their lifestyle, just borrowing against stocks instead of home equity. If people with $4 million homes are not rich, then neither are most billionaires.
It’s also NOT literally how a typical homeowner lives their life. Those are the people I’m talking about, who are being taxed on money they don’t have.
I suppose they haven’t. But they are planning on doing so. And their lack of a property tax is a major reason their cities struggle financially.
Also, the key context here is that land in China is technically owned by the state. It’s leased out on very long term ground leases, but it’s all still owned by the state. In principle, the government doesn’t need to add another property tax, as it’s already leasing out the land. It would be like if a landlord also charged property tax to their tenants.
I see your point for general taxes, but if the federal and state government are already taking your income and many other things how come they’re also taking so much in property tax? Many other countries seem to be able to protect you and give you what you need without property tax.
Most modern nations have higher taxes especially on the rich
Because collecting only one type of taxes would cause massive economic distortion and would inevitably burden people unequally. Different taxes have different properties. Some hit certain groups harder than others. Some hit certain types of businesses harder than others. Far better to have a whole series of modest taxes than one form of ruinous taxation. Do some countries not have property taxes? Yes, but they’re small tax havens that aren’t really a good model for the vast majority of nations.
But as far as optimization, consider some examples.
Property taxes also work best at the local level because the spending needs of municipalities don’t swing heavily with economic conditions. The federal government has spending needs that vary wildly with the economic cycle. During a recession, the federal government needs to massively ramp up its spending. But at a local level, a recession doesn’t mean you suddenly need twice the number of firefighters. Property taxes are pretty steady over time, so they’re a good match for the needs of local government. The federal government’s income tax revenue goes down during a recession, but that’s ultimately fine, as the federal government controls the currency. They can afford to sustain massive deficits during bad years and make it up with surpluses in the good years. (Well, if the federal government was functioning as designed.)
Income taxes also make more sense for government entities whose jurisdictions are difficult to avoid. If you fund your city entirely with income tax and no property taxes, you may find your community completely overrun by retirees who want services like anyone else, but don’t actually earn much taxable income to pay for them. If you fund your city entirely through a large sales tax, people can just drive and shop outside of city limits. It’s much harder for people to avoid federal income tax simply by moving house. Unless you’re leaving the country entirely, you’re not avoiding the reach of federal income taxes. (And sometimes even that doesn’t cut it!)
But property taxes? The only way to avoid those is to not live in the city at all. Which, from the city’s perspective, is fine. If you don’t live in the city, then you’re not putting much burden on the city’s infrastructure and services. But if you want to live in the city and enjoy all the benefits that come with living in a city, you have to pay the city’s property taxes.
In short, different taxes have different properties, different benefits and drawbacks. Funding a society through a diverse arrangement of taxes allows much more efficient optimization of these taxes. It’s a much more intelligent system than just trying to fund it all with one big dumb tax of a single type. That’s more the way of Medieval head taxes, not modern nation states. We used to have simple tax systems. We stopped using them because we realized there were better ways to do it.
Like almost every issue, property taxes aren’t a binary issue - it’s not a matter of either having them or not having them. There’s the sub-issue of how the rates are set. Simply tying property taxes to home value isn’t fair, because the burden a person puts on city services doesn’t increase just because the perceived value of their home rises. You don’t actually receive any of that value until you sell your house and leave, but you’re taxed on it anyway. Being taxed when you sell the house would make perfect sense to me, because that’s when you actually reap the benefits.
The argument that people in high-priced neighborhoods are rich and can afford or deserve to pay higher property taxes is unrealistic. Recent newcomers, yes, but not people who bought homes when they were still cheap because the area wasn’t so desirable. Those people are no different from people who buy cheap houses today, they just did it a long time ago. But they get charged premium rates because the perceived value of their home increased. That way of assessing property taxes isn’t fair, it’s just bureaucratically easy.
I think property tax should be heavily weighted by the original price you paid for your house, and should go up with inflation and the cost of services. It should not be flatly tied to the price you would get for your house if you hypothetically sold it.
It depends how much home value correlates to house size and lot size. A $1M 1500 sqft bungalow on a 1/4 acre lot in a gentrified neighborhood may not burden city services more than a $100k 1500 sqft bungalow on a 1/4 acre lot in a bad neighborhood, but a $1M McMansion on a 2-acre lot on the edge of the city absolutely will. That’s because the cost of city services scales with things like increasing the length of pavement and sewer pipe across the lot frontage and decreasing the number of homes emergency services can reach within a reasonable distance/time from the station.
Yes, you an come up with edge cases like McMansions next to golf courses, but houses on identical lots right next to each other can have different values and pay different property taxes even though they take the same amount of city services. Remodeling a house, or even just painting it frequently and keeping the yard nicer than others, doesn’t make you consume more city services, but it will raise the home’s assessed value and property taxes. That’s a false link.
Putting a second story on likely includes increasing the number of bedrooms, which theoretically increases the number of people who could be living there and thus increase the burden on city services. Renovating for quality and building additions to the square footage aren’t equivalent.
I think lot sizes are still a much bigger factor, though: a house renovated/rebuilt to max out the allowed FAR (floor-area ratio) on a 1/4 acre lot still ought to get taxed less than a modest-sized house on a 2-acre lot.
You don’t have to remodel. Just living in an area that becomes more desirable makes your home value go up, and your taxes go up in step with that. I’m not talking about inflation, I’m talking about areas taking turns being the trendy place to live. Just because you’ve been there for a long time, you pay the same tax on the house you paid $100k for as somebody who buys the house next door for $500k, because their willingness to do that makes your house worth $500 too.
That is how you end up with California, where the old generations get wealthy, and the young generations are driven out of the state completely.
Yes, the economic conditions in a state with 40 million people are probably due to one specific factor. Classic meme-level thinking!
Prop 13 is real, yo
So are about a million other things that have happened in the 40 years since prop 13, yo.
They are actually rich. They have earned in many cases more money in real estate than many people have earned working
Uhhh no… the value of your house is what somebody might buy it for IF YOU SOLD IT. Until you actually do sell it, you don’t get that money or “make money in real estate”. As I said, taxing you at the point where you sell the house would make sense to me - because that’s when you’re actually getting money. The way property taxes are now, people are being taxed on money they might hypothetically get in the future.
Now it’s true that you can borrow against your home value - this is known as a home equity loan or a line of credit. So you potentially have that available - but even that is not “making money in real estate”, it’s borrowing money that you have to pay back.
Srsly, what grade are you in?
That is literally how every billionaire funds their lifestyle, just borrowing against stocks instead of home equity. If people with $4 million homes are not rich, then neither are most billionaires.
It’s also NOT literally how a typical homeowner lives their life. Those are the people I’m talking about, who are being taxed on money they don’t have.
China is a small tax haven?
I suppose they haven’t. But they are planning on doing so. And their lack of a property tax is a major reason their cities struggle financially.
Also, the key context here is that land in China is technically owned by the state. It’s leased out on very long term ground leases, but it’s all still owned by the state. In principle, the government doesn’t need to add another property tax, as it’s already leasing out the land. It would be like if a landlord also charged property tax to their tenants.