6 ms·

Property taxes? At least where I live, land values are assessed annually, and the owner is obligated to pay a percentage of that value. Those tax funds are us

Property taxes? At least where I live, land values are assessed annually, and the owner is obligated to pay a percentage of that value. Those tax funds are used for the very improvements mentioned, as well as usage-based utility fees for the services.

ummonk 8y ago
California has prop 13 which results in property taxes not keeping up with assessments.
- zeroonetwothree 8y ago
  To be fair, just because the marginal house sells for more doesn't mean that providing local services is commensurately more expensive.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    Sure, but Churchill's point above is, "... he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived." The more out of step taxation is with wealth creation, more accurate that point becomes. Whether or not that's a bad thing can be reasonably debated, I think.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    Really? What about heavily contributing to the devaluation of the money paid to keep said services running?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    It does however mean that house prices for staff are more expensive, so they need to be paid correspondingly more, and staff costs are a very large fraction of the cost of services.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    In the case of expensive urban areas it kind of does. High housing costs mean that literally everything in an area is more expensive. All services and all goods require human labor - people to load and unload trucks, stock shelves, stand behind registers, prepare goods and services etc.. High rents are a massive transfer of wealth over time from everyone else to landlords. So yes, increased housing costs do make all local services cost more, at the expense of the general public and for the benefit of landlords.
- the_watcher 8y ago
  Sure, but it still negates the argument that landlords don't contribute towards shared services at all.
  - CalChris 8y ago
    Landlords like the Peery Arrillaga have owned their land from before Prop 13. They pay virtually nothing in property taxes for it.
    - the_watcher 8y ago
      Less than what they'd pay if they bought now (or than they should pay, either works) still negates the argument that landlords don't contribute in any way.
pjc50 8y ago
Not in the UK. We have a system that's vaguely related to the value of the house, banded so that expensive property is under-taxed, and usually capped by central government. It's quite a mess.
- DanBC 8y ago
  And, since 2013, starting to disproportionately affect the poorest too. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/council-tax-austerity-local-services https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/counci...
- ben_w 8y ago
  And worse, it’s occipier based, not owner based. I own a flat in the UK and it’s my tenant, not me, who pays council tax.
roenxi 8y ago
I really like property taxes in principle, so I want to expand on the argument for why they are a good idea. Ignoring the built property, land is an asset that basically doesn't decay with time, can't be physically carried away, provides its own storage and there is always someone who could be using it (in cities). Most of the value isn't in the land either, it is the services, infrastructure and community around the property that create the value. Almost all other assets decay if you don't use them. That enforces a level of equality in the long term, where effective owners can out-compete ineffective owners, because assets are usually replaced every 20-30 years in a Ship of Theseus style process. It makes sense to have a 1.25% or thereabouts annual tax on land, so owners essentially have to repurchase it once a generation. We shouldn't allow the system to reward people because their great-grandparent bought property. We should reward them because they are responsible owners of that property, contributing to their community or somesuch to the point they can pay that tax.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
  This should then apply to intellectual property as well.

ummonk 8y ago

California has prop 13 which results in property taxes not keeping up with assessments.

zeroonetwothree 8y ago
To be fair, just because the marginal house sells for more doesn't mean that providing local services is commensurately more expensive.
- carbocation 8y ago
  Sure, but Churchill's point above is, "... he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived." The more out of step taxation is with wealth creation, more accurate that point becomes. Whether or not that's a bad thing can be reasonably debated, I think.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Really? What about heavily contributing to the devaluation of the money paid to keep said services running?
- pjc50 8y ago
  It does however mean that house prices for staff are more expensive, so they need to be paid correspondingly more, and staff costs are a very large fraction of the cost of services.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  In the case of expensive urban areas it kind of does. High housing costs mean that literally everything in an area is more expensive. All services and all goods require human labor - people to load and unload trucks, stock shelves, stand behind registers, prepare goods and services etc.. High rents are a massive transfer of wealth over time from everyone else to landlords. So yes, increased housing costs do make all local services cost more, at the expense of the general public and for the benefit of landlords.
the_watcher 8y ago
Sure, but it still negates the argument that landlords don't contribute towards shared services at all.
- CalChris 8y ago
  Landlords like the Peery Arrillaga have owned their land from before Prop 13. They pay virtually nothing in property taxes for it.
  - the_watcher 8y ago
    Less than what they'd pay if they bought now (or than they should pay, either works) still negates the argument that landlords don't contribute in any way.

pjc50 8y ago

Not in the UK. We have a system that's vaguely related to the value of the house, banded so that expensive property is under-taxed, and usually capped by central government. It's quite a mess.

DanBC 8y ago
And, since 2013, starting to disproportionately affect the poorest too. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/council-tax-austerity-local-services https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/counci...
ben_w 8y ago
And worse, it’s occipier based, not owner based. I own a flat in the UK and it’s my tenant, not me, who pays council tax.

roenxi 8y ago

I really like property taxes in principle, so I want to expand on the argument for why they are a good idea. Ignoring the built property, land is an asset that basically doesn't decay with time, can't be physically carried away, provides its own storage and there is always someone who could be using it (in cities). Most of the value isn't in the land either, it is the services, infrastructure and community around the property that create the value. Almost all other assets decay if you don't use them. That enforces a level of equality in the long term, where effective owners can out-compete ineffective owners, because assets are usually replaced every 20-30 years in a Ship of Theseus style process. It makes sense to have a 1.25% or thereabouts annual tax on land, so owners essentially have to repurchase it once a generation. We shouldn't allow the system to reward people because their great-grandparent bought property. We should reward them because they are responsible owners of that property, contributing to their community or somesuch to the point they can pay that tax.

Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
This should then apply to intellectual property as well.