Comment

Comment on ‘My Property Tax Went From $15K to a Life-Altering $91K a Year’

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

tills13@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
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.

source
- deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Tax Other Stuff
  
  source
- Phoonzang@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  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).
  
  source
  - calcopiritus@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Why do millionaires pay more taxes than minimum-wage workers?
    
    Whatever answer you come up to my question can probably answer yours.
    
    source
  - mojofrododojo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
  - Test_Tickles@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
- mcteazy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    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?
    
    source
    deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Workers. Employers. Commuters. Capital gains. Sales.
    
    There are so many things you can tax, so many points where money moves from one set of hands to another where you can shave a little off the top. It’s just a bit absurd to me that we will shake people down for money for just having a home that an assessor figures could sell for some particular amount of money.
    
    source
- Master@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  No. Those things are paid for by other taxes and service fees.
  
  source
partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Tax the sales of property.

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.

Who are you suggesting paying the bill for your consumption of city services besides you?

source
- deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I still think citizens should pay the bill for their services, but tax should be on the basis of income, and wealthier people should pay more to cover for those who can’t. And why not income, the money you actually bring in, and not a portion the money your home would theoretically sell for if you sold it? The point at which to take tax is the point of transfer, whether it’s labor for a wage or a change of ownership (sales and inheritance).
  
  I absolutely don’t believe that people would be less likely to sell their property because they might have to pay a percentage of the profits from the sale. And if they were less likely to sell it, who cares? Take the money from the excess houses when they die. I think I also mentioned that I’m not principally against taxes on non-resident property (which is essentially abandoned or a business asset if not owner occupied). I’m also not against rent controls.
  
  Like God forbid one recognize that certain approaches to taxation are problematic, it must mean you’re a conservative who’s against government services.
  
  source
TonyOstrich@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
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?

source
- deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Eventually no one will be able to afford a house not merely because they can’t buy it in the first place, but because even if they inherit it they can’t keep up with the tax bill because on paper it’s worth 8 times what their parents paid even inflation adjusted. I’m not even making those proportions up, that’s about the change in cost in my neighborhood I think.
  
  source
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
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.

source
- deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  You know what stops people from selling houses? Skyrocketing housing prices. Cuts out buyers, and makes loans against equity more appealing than actually cashing out.
  
  You know what tax people can actually afford, that isn’t based on the opinions of appraisers regarding the fickle whims of a speculative market? Income tax.
  
  source
threeganzi@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
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 more tax on it.

source
- deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  It’s not a bad compromise, it’s just a matter of finding a good value for X. And that’s hard to do as housing prices continue to balloon and housing costs take up a greater percentage of people’s incomes. Houses that would have cost one year’s income in the 60s can easily cost 8 to 10 times that today.
  
  I don’t know, maybe you should have to pay property taxes if the land occupies more than a certain square footage. That could discourage suburban style development and promote greater population density, which could both act as a net positive.
  
  source
  - threeganzi@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Yeah, the devil would be in the details, of course, and to make sure there aren’t any obvious loopholes. Ideally it would be at increasing brackets as well.
    
    Wouldn’t taxes on above-X value keep prices down? Buying fancy houses as investment could be countered by the additional running expense of taxes.
    
    Basing it on square footage could also work, or as an additional parameter, but might make more sense in cities where space is more scarce.
    
    source
Fredselfish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
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.

source
- deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Yeah 10 acres seems a bit excessive to me but I like the basic principle.
  
  source
- aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  This is almost how the taxes work in California.
  
  source