The worst tax of all

That was a good play, but it sucks as a policy.

Fanaddict is right. There shouldn't be a property tax. SO, what do you do about it?

 

I know you're a nutty libertarian and all, but even libertarians realize that there has to be some government. Which tax do you think should remain? Because you're starting to run out of taxes to abolish.

 

Whiny-ass home/land-owners. The property tax is not high enough in most places. You claim the real estate is investment and good for you because you don't have to pay taxes as high on your income while you pay off a mortgage - so why should you not continue to be taxed on the home/land's worth? Just because you haven't sold it doesn't mean it (and you) aren't making money.

In your community, are the schools top-notch and not at all overcrowded? Are teachers paid a living wage? Firemen? Is there adequate water and sewer treatment and plenty of roads for any commuters (if applicable)? No? Then your taxes are not high enough.

Sorry, being in the NoVa area and listening to people whine about their paltry taxes while making a fortune on owning/selling their houses is just a bit tiring.

 

Hard to see how you can call it the most regressive if, by definition, it is not levied against non-property owners which covers most low income people.

I would agree that it is too high in many places, and there should be protections for seniors. For example, I know in Cook County (and perhaps throughout Illinois) Seniors can get their property taxes frozen at current rates, with the balance becoming a lien against the property to be paid from a sale or from the estate of the person.

Not a great solution, but it keeps old people from getting run out of their houses.

 

Income tax.

I like the flat-tax proposals running round.

The IRS needs to be pretty much done away with. The laws have gotten so bad, there's is not one person who files correctly anymore. Not one.

No property or sales tax.

 

I like the idea of only having property and consumption taxes.

 

The gov't protects your right to use that space. You "own" it. In exchange, you pay property tax. Seems like a reasonable trade.

If there is no property tax, then what is the disincentive for hoarding land from other potential owners/users? Even if it sits empty, you are preventing others from making use of that space. Property tax is in society's best interests, since it encourages land use.

 

No offense, but you obviously don't know the meaning of the word "regressive."

Sales taxes are the most regressive major tax.

 

But at least pot will be legal and we'll be able to drive without a license.

 

User fees such as licenses and auto registrations are more regressive than sales taxes, even if they make up a smaller percentage of the total tax bill. But FICA is really the absolute worst -- 12.4% up to $90k (or whatever it is for '06), and 0% thereafter.

I'm not against a flat tax in theory, especially if the tax was all-inclusive (that is, put dividends and other investment income into the same pot as employment income, and pay FICA out of general revenue) but in reality it's not feasible. The elimination of mortgage interest and charitable contribution deductions would have to be part of it, which would annihilate most charities (especially churches) and seriously harm the real estate market.

 

I'd love to rid our society of the property tax, but it probably won't happen. So here is my suggestion:
Property tax should remain based on the price paid by the current owner. If you bought the house in 1957 for $30,000, you're still paying tax on that investment today in 2006.
If you bought the house next door in 1999 for $300,000, you're paying tax on that amount.
Allowing cities/states to decide housing values is only adding to the bureaucracies.

 

so why not decrease the size of your local and state governments so that your tax rates will fall?

 

That's how it works in California. No reassessments, unless major work is done to the structure (no, not even for refinancing). In a state as transitory as California it has a different effect than it would in New Jersey, where people often spend lifetimes in the same house. Then again, property taxes in New Jersey are bizarre, and that's coming from someone who's not at all averse to contributing financially to the community.

I disagree wholeheartedly that renting is a good financial policy for individuals. Owning property is just that -- come hell or high water, as long as you make your payments, that little patch of dirt is yours. Over the long haul, the value of that piece of dirt will rise, and even if it doesn't, it has intrinsic value in that one can live there. Paying rent is simply contributing to someone else's mortgage payments. You get nothing from it -- there is no return on what can be a substantial investment.

 

Stupid, stupid idea.

How will this make society better? Even if you think it's a good idea for old people to hold onto 4 bedroom homes (it isn't, but that's an argument for another thread) you've just shifted the tax burden from people who bought homes that have massively appreciated onto new homeowners.

Society has enough tax policies that distribute income up the income scale. We don't need another one.

Cali tried this. It's one key reason Cali was a great place to live in the 70s and isn't now.

 

Yogi Berra: "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"

 

I dont have a big pro blemwith property taxes. As SuperDave explained, if I own a footprint of land, I owe a fee for having it protected, etc. I have just one caveat. Why is it that when property tax increases/decreases are voted on, non property owners are allowed to vote?


Another thing to back up Segroves. Property taxes have plummeted post Katrina in NO. The city consequently had to lay off 3000 employees and borrow money to last until march. Property taxes are an OK tax, but their needs to be some sort of backup revenue perhaps...

 

If this is a serious question...

1. Um, can we get this to apply to all taxes?
2. Except for boomerang children, EVERYONE pays property tax, even if they pay it indirectly.

 

Unless it looks like it has solid strip-mall potential...then it's not yours at all. Or, at least, you don't have any say in what happens to your property as it becomes someone else's property, and you are given a "value" for it...

 

You a big, Blackstone-ish property rights guy, Mel?

 

Aside from the obvious fairness issues, that would result in making property a lot less liquid.

 

That's a bad idea if you want good schools.