3 ms·
I think this is a fair preference. But if the tax structure weighted properly on by land, you would most likely pay as much as rent being a homeowner. For exam
by conanbatt 7y ago
I think this is a fair preference. But if the tax structure weighted properly on by land, you would most likely pay as much as rent being a homeowner.
For example, in San Francisco, de city spends about 2000U$S per household. And if you adjusted that amount of the amount of space used, single family homes would end up paying 3~4k a month of taxes alone.
- choeger 7y ago> But if the tax structure weighted properly on by land, you would most likely pay as much as rent being a homeowner. Huh? So the rent covers the infrastructure cost? Last time I checked, both renters and owners pay infrastructure directly. That includes waste water, garbage disposal, and pretty much everything else. None of this scales with the space I use, at most it scales with the square root of space due to larger distances.
- conanbatt 7y agoRenters pay twice, because they pay for the infrastructure that increases the homeowners property value. Its an uneven tax structure for a renter to pay for the bart station that increases the prop value and thus their own rent.