5 ms·

There's a simple solution here. You tell me what you think your property is worth. And I can force you to move out today for that price. This might still be a l

There's a simple solution here. You tell me what you think your property is worth. And I can force you to move out today for that price. This might still be a loss for the county tax assessors, but it will at least keep these stores honest. Maybe we even include all the inventory and fixtures in that deal to keep the companies even more honest, since a competitor can almost turnkey the operation at that point (though the logistics of resupply can't be understated).

eiaoa 8y ago
> There's a simple solution here. You tell me what you think your property is worth. And I can force you to move out today for that price. This might still be a loss for the county tax assessors, but it will at least keep these stores honest. It might not even cost the county tax assessors much, some of these abuses are so blatant that even a private citizen could buy out the building under that policy: https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/14/apple-hq-200-dollars-santa-clara-county/ https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/14/apple-hq-200-dollars-sant... > Apple, history’s first trillion-dollar company, is arguing that a cluster of new buildings at its headquarters is worth only $200 in order to lower its tax burden. > The trillion-dollar tech giant claimed in an appeal the value of the “cluster of properties” is worth $200, not the $1 billion value given by the Santa Clara County’s tax assessor — elected officials who determine property value for tax purposes. I'd call it "disruptive innovation" to buy out Apple's headquarters buildings for the $200 it thinks they're worth, rent them back to Apple at the maximum price the market will bear, and pay Santa Clara County it's fair share in taxes.
- mdasen 8y ago
  https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/13/apple-appeals-against-santa-clara-county-tax-demands-over-high-property-valuations https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/13/apple-appeals-aga... To be fair, another source says it’s unclear if that is $200 or $200M which is a big difference. Apple does pay $56M in property taxes per year in Santa Clara county and is the largest property tax payer in a county that includes Google. If property taxes there are 1%, that would mean $5.6B in assessed value.
WalterBright 8y ago
I've suggested to the tax assessor that I'd be happy to sell my property to him at significantly less than the value he assessed it at. He was not amused, but I did get the assessed value lowered. I'd vote for a system where the government was obliged to purchase property at a 25% discount to what they assessed it at, if the owner chooses to sell it.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I've suggested that before as well. I think the figure should be more like 10-15%, but otherwise agree that keeps a town assessor honest in a more straightforward manner than the current "appeal to the same board that originally assessed you too high" tends to.
nordsieck 8y ago
> You tell me what you think your property is worth. And I can force you to move out today for that price. In theory, this idea is really good, but I think it needs a certain amount of refinement. The largest, obvious problem is that transaction costs are enormous. That might be mitigated by adding a multiplier to the forced sale value: say 1.3 or 1.5. I have no idea what an appropriate value is, but it seems like the sort of thing that could be determined empirically. On the commercial side, there's all sorts of complications (e.g. tenant improvements) that I just don't know enough about to even talk about intelligently.
- breakintheweb 8y ago
  I think there would be a big problem with sentimental value also. For example, the old local store that is family owned or the house that you built with a family member who is now deceased.
mlinksva 8y ago
Recent paper on this very old and worthy idea https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12668&context=journal_articles https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  Also fundamentally tyrannical and inhuman, but at least "old" is correct. Posner and Weyl's work is fascinating as thought experiment, but even they admit that a system like that poses massive problems and questions of morality.
matt4077 8y ago
The shotgun clause has its problems even in contracts among equals. Those are even more relevant here. Specifically, this would link a town's ability to raise taxes dependent on its existing financial situation: A poor town that would run into difficulty obtaining financing for multi-million $ purchases could easily be scared into undervaluing properties, further weakening its financial position. While they could (in theory) flip the property and earn money, the market for large retail properties would seem to be at the rather illiquid end of the spectrum. And even with good prospects of selling, I wouldn't want to be the small-town mayor (who are, I believe, usually unpaid) suddenly shouldered with the responsibility for such a transaction.
lozaning 8y ago
Worked for the Romans.

eiaoa 8y ago

> There's a simple solution here. You tell me what you think your property is worth. And I can force you to move out today for that price. This might still be a loss for the county tax assessors, but it will at least keep these stores honest. It might not even cost the county tax assessors much, some of these abuses are so blatant that even a private citizen could buy out the building under that policy: https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/14/apple-hq-200-dollars-santa-clara-county/ https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/14/apple-hq-200-dollars-sant... > Apple, history’s first trillion-dollar company, is arguing that a cluster of new buildings at its headquarters is worth only $200 in order to lower its tax burden. > The trillion-dollar tech giant claimed in an appeal the value of the “cluster of properties” is worth $200, not the $1 billion value given by the Santa Clara County’s tax assessor — elected officials who determine property value for tax purposes. I'd call it "disruptive innovation" to buy out Apple's headquarters buildings for the $200 it thinks they're worth, rent them back to Apple at the maximum price the market will bear, and pay Santa Clara County it's fair share in taxes.

mdasen 8y ago
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/13/apple-appeals-against-santa-clara-county-tax-demands-over-high-property-valuations https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/13/apple-appeals-aga... To be fair, another source says it’s unclear if that is $200 or $200M which is a big difference. Apple does pay $56M in property taxes per year in Santa Clara county and is the largest property tax payer in a county that includes Google. If property taxes there are 1%, that would mean $5.6B in assessed value.

WalterBright 8y ago

I've suggested to the tax assessor that I'd be happy to sell my property to him at significantly less than the value he assessed it at. He was not amused, but I did get the assessed value lowered. I'd vote for a system where the government was obliged to purchase property at a 25% discount to what they assessed it at, if the owner chooses to sell it.

sokoloff 8y ago
I've suggested that before as well. I think the figure should be more like 10-15%, but otherwise agree that keeps a town assessor honest in a more straightforward manner than the current "appeal to the same board that originally assessed you too high" tends to.

nordsieck 8y ago

> You tell me what you think your property is worth. And I can force you to move out today for that price. In theory, this idea is really good, but I think it needs a certain amount of refinement. The largest, obvious problem is that transaction costs are enormous. That might be mitigated by adding a multiplier to the forced sale value: say 1.3 or 1.5. I have no idea what an appropriate value is, but it seems like the sort of thing that could be determined empirically. On the commercial side, there's all sorts of complications (e.g. tenant improvements) that I just don't know enough about to even talk about intelligently.

breakintheweb 8y ago
I think there would be a big problem with sentimental value also. For example, the old local store that is family owned or the house that you built with a family member who is now deceased.

mlinksva 8y ago

Recent paper on this very old and worthy idea https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12668&context=journal_articles https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

Matticus_Rex 8y ago
Also fundamentally tyrannical and inhuman, but at least "old" is correct. Posner and Weyl's work is fascinating as thought experiment, but even they admit that a system like that poses massive problems and questions of morality.

matt4077 8y ago

The shotgun clause has its problems even in contracts among equals. Those are even more relevant here. Specifically, this would link a town's ability to raise taxes dependent on its existing financial situation: A poor town that would run into difficulty obtaining financing for multi-million $ purchases could easily be scared into undervaluing properties, further weakening its financial position. While they could (in theory) flip the property and earn money, the market for large retail properties would seem to be at the rather illiquid end of the spectrum. And even with good prospects of selling, I wouldn't want to be the small-town mayor (who are, I believe, usually unpaid) suddenly shouldered with the responsibility for such a transaction.

lozaning 8y ago

Worked for the Romans.