6 ms·

Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?

by jimmyk 9y ago

zanny 9y ago
Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.
  - zanny 9y ago
    Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate. I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.
- mrbabbage 9y ago
  > Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. I don't think the property tax is the issue. It's doing school funding at a sufficiently granular level that's the real issue—poor cities / districts won't have the same sort of tax base, be it collected via income, property, excise, sales, or somehow else, as do rich districts. What you want is some sort of redistributive system. Really large districts (like entire states or countries) accomplish this as rich areas within the district subsidize less wealthy ones. Grants from higher levels of government, paid for by taxpayers in other parts of the jurisdiction, also accomplish this. That said, money isn't everything...San Francisco has a tremendously wealthy tax base and an unusually small student population due to the city's demographics, but the schools aren't anything to write home about.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  > A progressive percentage of earned income Highly dense young-urban-professional work-centric neighborhoods low on kids (SF, LA, SJ) would receive more money, suburban, rural and single-industry neighborhoods (towns in San Bernardino, Fresno counties) dominated by families with children would receive less money.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. I'm not big on property taxes on general principle but it's a somewhat economical approach to implementing the hyperlocal school board approach that Americans seem to prefer despite the proliferation of bureaucracy it imposes.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. OK but what does that have to do with paying back the cost of my own education?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    The American Dream is basically get born, go to school, go to work and work hard, get a car, get your own home, and settle down with someone you like and drop a couple of kids. taxing property balances out these costs and benefits in a very approximate indirect way without much accounting. For me it's not very important that there should be accurate accounting of such things. I just don't lose much sleep over tax money going to education because it keeps a virtuous cycle going. I didn't even grow up in the USA, but what my home country lost in direct tax revenue may be made up over the long run by increased international trade. I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level, which only results in more bureaucracy and promotes a penny-pinching mentality that is inimical to the undertaking of increasing public goods and economic development.
    - jimmyk 9y ago
      >I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level I certainly agree that funding for public education cannot be considered a repayment for some personal debt, which is why I objected to the comment I first replied to.
  - fjdlwlv 9y ago
    Think of it like this: your public education was provided not for a fee, but for an equity stake in You, Incorporated.b the more you earn, the more the state gets back, like an investor.

Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?

by jimmyk 9y ago

Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?

Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.

fjdlwlv 9y ago
Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.
- zanny 9y ago
  Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate. I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.
mrbabbage 9y ago
> Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. I don't think the property tax is the issue. It's doing school funding at a sufficiently granular level that's the real issue—poor cities / districts won't have the same sort of tax base, be it collected via income, property, excise, sales, or somehow else, as do rich districts. What you want is some sort of redistributive system. Really large districts (like entire states or countries) accomplish this as rich areas within the district subsidize less wealthy ones. Grants from higher levels of government, paid for by taxpayers in other parts of the jurisdiction, also accomplish this. That said, money isn't everything...San Francisco has a tremendously wealthy tax base and an unusually small student population due to the city's demographics, but the schools aren't anything to write home about.
prostoalex 9y ago
> A progressive percentage of earned income Highly dense young-urban-professional work-centric neighborhoods low on kids (SF, LA, SJ) would receive more money, suburban, rural and single-industry neighborhoods (towns in San Bernardino, Fresno counties) dominated by families with children would receive less money.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. I'm not big on property taxes on general principle but it's a somewhat economical approach to implementing the hyperlocal school board approach that Americans seem to prefer despite the proliferation of bureaucracy it imposes.

jimmyk 9y ago
>Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. OK but what does that have to do with paying back the cost of my own education?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  The American Dream is basically get born, go to school, go to work and work hard, get a car, get your own home, and settle down with someone you like and drop a couple of kids. taxing property balances out these costs and benefits in a very approximate indirect way without much accounting. For me it's not very important that there should be accurate accounting of such things. I just don't lose much sleep over tax money going to education because it keeps a virtuous cycle going. I didn't even grow up in the USA, but what my home country lost in direct tax revenue may be made up over the long run by increased international trade. I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level, which only results in more bureaucracy and promotes a penny-pinching mentality that is inimical to the undertaking of increasing public goods and economic development.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    >I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level I certainly agree that funding for public education cannot be considered a repayment for some personal debt, which is why I objected to the comment I first replied to.
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  Think of it like this: your public education was provided not for a fee, but for an equity stake in You, Incorporated.b the more you earn, the more the state gets back, like an investor.