4 ms·

It's this kind of nonsense that allowed abominations like Prop 13 in CA to pass. This particular fallacy is a classic false dichotomy. It's not an either-or si

by cletus 8y ago

It's this kind of nonsense that allowed abominations like Prop 13 in CA to pass. This particular fallacy is a classic false dichotomy. It's not an either-or situation. In CA the incumbents voted themselves a massive tax break ("because retirees") when, if retirees were something you really cared about, you could simply give them a lower rate of tax or no tax at all for their principal place of residence while still collecting taxes from non-retirees.

drewg123 8y ago
This 100% I was disappointed they didn't have photos of row after row of poorly maintained multi-million dollar single-story ranch houses in the Bay Area. My old neighborhood in Mountain View was filled with retirees who were paying next to nothing to stay in the houses they bought in the 60s and 70s. These were the same people who would regularly vote against new housing because it "harmed the quality of the neighborhood." Every time I walked to work, I day-dreamed of how many people could live close enough to walk to work if we could put a 10 story apartment building over each of those junky old Eichlers.
virmundi 8y ago
Then you're showing a lot of favoritism. It's hard to universalize the idea that we should show favoritism. For example, historically we favored handicapped people. This was to their detriment. We paid for their subsistence living since we excluded them from having real jobs. It's not a fallacy if you think people own land. They shouldn't have to pay a yearly fee to keep the government from taking their property. Think about applying the same thing to laptops. Laptops are tools, or at least may be tools, for production and income. Why not tax all laptops owned by software folk as we tax other business goods? In general, this argument seems to come down to "the society provides so much, pay your damn share." How about no, I don't want the society to pay for so much? As a result, I want to pay less.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Laptops don’t require road maintenance, emergency services, schools, etc. Real estate does. If you don’t want society to pay for so much, maybe move to somewhere without one. Most of us want to live in a place where we all pitch in to help provide public services.
  - virmundi 8y ago
    While most want to live in a society that provides some base level of features, we have huge difference of opinion of what that is. For example, police. If you legalized all drugs, you'd not need as many as you have. You could save money by not having their salaries, pensions, and benefits. You could also increase revenue by having reasonable taxes on the sale of the vice. Now you don't need to take land from people. My whole point in all of this is that property taxes are not necessary. Rather they are used by people that don't want to think about ways to truly free their society. Those people limit building heights. They limit trade. They limit the very means that a state could make a reasonable income.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      No individual tax is necessary, but if you agree that government funding is needed then it’s just a question of what you tax. I don’t see why property tax should be singled out as being particularly bad, and the argument you’re making seems to be more like “I don’t want to pay so much” rather than “property taxes are worse than these other taxes.” Note than land value taxes, a special case of property taxes, are widely considered to be the most efficient means of taxation among economists.
      - virmundi 8y ago
        The issue is you’re maintaining a tax on a purchase after it’s purchased. It’s perpetual sales tax. If we can tax in over ways, why create a specific instance for this kind of tax?
        mikeash 8y ago
        Real estate is special in all sorts of legal and physical ways. I don't see why it’s weird that this would include taxes.
  - imh 8y ago
    Real estate doesn't require road maintenance, cars do. I agree that people have to pay the government to maintain these, but homes do remain relatively unique among people's possessions as a thing that you own, but have to pay ongoing taxes to keep owning. I don't think the reason why is as straightforward as "real estate needs roads/schools/etc"

by cletus 8y ago

drewg123 8y ago

This 100% I was disappointed they didn't have photos of row after row of poorly maintained multi-million dollar single-story ranch houses in the Bay Area. My old neighborhood in Mountain View was filled with retirees who were paying next to nothing to stay in the houses they bought in the 60s and 70s. These were the same people who would regularly vote against new housing because it "harmed the quality of the neighborhood." Every time I walked to work, I day-dreamed of how many people could live close enough to walk to work if we could put a 10 story apartment building over each of those junky old Eichlers.

virmundi 8y ago

Then you're showing a lot of favoritism. It's hard to universalize the idea that we should show favoritism. For example, historically we favored handicapped people. This was to their detriment. We paid for their subsistence living since we excluded them from having real jobs. It's not a fallacy if you think people own land. They shouldn't have to pay a yearly fee to keep the government from taking their property. Think about applying the same thing to laptops. Laptops are tools, or at least may be tools, for production and income. Why not tax all laptops owned by software folk as we tax other business goods? In general, this argument seems to come down to "the society provides so much, pay your damn share." How about no, I don't want the society to pay for so much? As a result, I want to pay less.

mikeash 8y ago
Laptops don’t require road maintenance, emergency services, schools, etc. Real estate does. If you don’t want society to pay for so much, maybe move to somewhere without one. Most of us want to live in a place where we all pitch in to help provide public services.
- virmundi 8y ago
  While most want to live in a society that provides some base level of features, we have huge difference of opinion of what that is. For example, police. If you legalized all drugs, you'd not need as many as you have. You could save money by not having their salaries, pensions, and benefits. You could also increase revenue by having reasonable taxes on the sale of the vice. Now you don't need to take land from people. My whole point in all of this is that property taxes are not necessary. Rather they are used by people that don't want to think about ways to truly free their society. Those people limit building heights. They limit trade. They limit the very means that a state could make a reasonable income.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    No individual tax is necessary, but if you agree that government funding is needed then it’s just a question of what you tax. I don’t see why property tax should be singled out as being particularly bad, and the argument you’re making seems to be more like “I don’t want to pay so much” rather than “property taxes are worse than these other taxes.” Note than land value taxes, a special case of property taxes, are widely considered to be the most efficient means of taxation among economists.
    - virmundi 8y ago
      The issue is you’re maintaining a tax on a purchase after it’s purchased. It’s perpetual sales tax. If we can tax in over ways, why create a specific instance for this kind of tax?
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Real estate is special in all sorts of legal and physical ways. I don't see why it’s weird that this would include taxes.
- imh 8y ago
  Real estate doesn't require road maintenance, cars do. I agree that people have to pay the government to maintain these, but homes do remain relatively unique among people's possessions as a thing that you own, but have to pay ongoing taxes to keep owning. I don't think the reason why is as straightforward as "real estate needs roads/schools/etc"