3 ms·
In California at least , the property tax bill is already split into two components: 1.) Tax on land value 2.) Tax on improvements (building, landscaping) ht
by jpao79 9y ago
In California at least , the property tax bill is already split into two components:
1.) Tax on land value
2.) Tax on improvements (building, landscaping)
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1...
Here's a brief description of how the increase in land value is calculated: "Under this system, when real property is purchased, the county assessor assigns it an assessed value that is equal to its purchase price, or “acquisition value.” Each year thereafter, the property’s assessed value increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower."
I think what the 2% appreciation cap is attempting to mitigate is if all your tech millionaire IPO neighbors decide to remodel their houses at once, you won't be stuck with a huge tax bill and have to move.
- yonran 9y agoWhat you describe is California’s Proposition 13. It does essentially the opposite of the Land Value Tax that the parent is advocating. The acquisition value system and 1% cap ensure that land investors (rather than local governments) capture the windfalls from the appreciation while they own the property. The split roll for land vs. new construction taxes new construction at a higher rate (rather than the lower 0% under the Land Value Tax) so Proposition 13 discourages (rather than encourages) investing in improvements.
- jpao79 9y agoAgreed. Just highlighting to some degree it exists already and as not a novel untested concept. It just needs refinement. A phased, gradual raising of the 2% cap probably would make sense over a couple of decades. That way homeowners and developers can adequately prepare and build in that rate increase into their economic models. Building lifetimes span multi-decades.