3 ms·

> It's in the best interests of those who own homes to lock people out of homeownership. This is only true in the absence of periodic appraisals to recalculate

by curun1r 10y ago

> It's in the best interests of those who own homes to lock people out of homeownership. This is only true in the absence of periodic appraisals to recalculate property taxes. In states where that is the norm, homeowners are incentivized to allow other homeowners to prevent their properties from appreciating, so long as they're not planning to sell in the immediate future. This has its own drawbacks (mostly longtime, fixed-income homeowners who are forced out due to onerous property taxes), but it's a much healthier dynamic than what states like California, where property taxes are capped, have.

eru 10y ago
Land taxes are even better for this. No need to penalize people for (housing) owning capital on top of the land.
- jrs235 10y ago
  It appears that you are getting down voted. I can only assume its because people don't like taxes, of any type, in general or that they don't understand what you mean by land taxes. Perhaps if you elaborated on land taxes then people would understand that "property" taxes should be determined by the value of the land being occupied and not include the value of what it is being used for (the tax amount shouldn't be more if its a 10 story high rise vs. a parking lot). Land is a fixed asset. If someone owned an entire block in San Francisco that was just surface parking they should pay the same amount of [land] tax as the owner of the lot across the street that has a multi-million dollar high rise housing complex. The nuances of various land tax plans can be interesting. One being that EVERYONE (human) that lives in a city/state/country gets an allowance based on the amount of land in that city/state/country divided by the number of people living in that city/state/country (and even perhaps multiplied by days living/residing divided by 365).
  - eru 10y ago
    Yes, you could use the proceeds of a land tax to eg pay for a universal basic income. You can also use some proceeds to pay for infrastructure development (of any kind). If done well, then the additional infrastructure will raise land values enough to pay for itself in higher taxes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
neap24 10y ago
Property tax caps can be a good thing in inexpensive areas. Indianapolis instituted a property tax cap almost a decade ago when some unscrupulous politicians used the appraisal office to gain tax revenue by artificially raising everyone's valuation. I suppose the same thing could happen in California, but at least you have the potential to sell your house for a profit there.
- hx87 10y ago
  The solution to that problem is to vote out said politicians, not impose a property tax cap.
- eru 10y ago
  Ideally, a land tax would tax away all land rent (but none of the capital income from the house on top). If well designed, one can't take more than 100%.

by curun1r 10y ago

eru 10y ago

Land taxes are even better for this. No need to penalize people for (housing) owning capital on top of the land.

jrs235 10y ago
It appears that you are getting down voted. I can only assume its because people don't like taxes, of any type, in general or that they don't understand what you mean by land taxes. Perhaps if you elaborated on land taxes then people would understand that "property" taxes should be determined by the value of the land being occupied and not include the value of what it is being used for (the tax amount shouldn't be more if its a 10 story high rise vs. a parking lot). Land is a fixed asset. If someone owned an entire block in San Francisco that was just surface parking they should pay the same amount of [land] tax as the owner of the lot across the street that has a multi-million dollar high rise housing complex. The nuances of various land tax plans can be interesting. One being that EVERYONE (human) that lives in a city/state/country gets an allowance based on the amount of land in that city/state/country divided by the number of people living in that city/state/country (and even perhaps multiplied by days living/residing divided by 365).
- eru 10y ago
  Yes, you could use the proceeds of a land tax to eg pay for a universal basic income. You can also use some proceeds to pay for infrastructure development (of any kind). If done well, then the additional infrastructure will raise land values enough to pay for itself in higher taxes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem

neap24 10y ago

Property tax caps can be a good thing in inexpensive areas. Indianapolis instituted a property tax cap almost a decade ago when some unscrupulous politicians used the appraisal office to gain tax revenue by artificially raising everyone's valuation. I suppose the same thing could happen in California, but at least you have the potential to sell your house for a profit there.

hx87 10y ago
The solution to that problem is to vote out said politicians, not impose a property tax cap.
eru 10y ago
Ideally, a land tax would tax away all land rent (but none of the capital income from the house on top). If well designed, one can't take more than 100%.