7 ms·

These 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. Land is an exclusionary good; you using it means I can't. Equity is non-exclusionary. Additionally, the city has to provid

These 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. Land is an exclusionary good; you using it means I can't. Equity is non-exclusionary. Additionally, the city has to provide services to owners of land, which requires money. The government has no such obligation to owners of equity.

scarface74 7y ago
Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there. The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land? I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....
- harryh 7y ago
  I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted..... Property taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes that exist. They are an excellent way to fund the government.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    How are they "economically efficient"? It doesn't cost anymore to serve someone in a million dollar home than a $200K home. Besides that you get into situations where richer neigborhood have better services, better funded school systems, etc.
    - harryh 7y ago
      Because they don't discourage otherwise positive economic activity.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Do you feel the same way about the government taking private property via eminent domain to build a Walmart?
        harryh 7y ago
        No.
        scarface74 7y ago
        What's the difference? Either way you're taking property for "positive economic activity". A Walmart can bring more jobs than a group of houses....
        tptacek 7y ago
        One obvious difference is that property taxes are applied uniformly and predictably --- a whole industry exists to plan around them --- and eminent domain is not, so widespread application of ED would create uncertainty that would discourage positive activity.
        scarface74 7y ago
        What’s “predictable” about having to pay taxes on a property that you don’t know how much will appreciate? Someone who bought a house 30 years ago while they were working, paid it off and had enough in savings to pay their bills but not pay taxes on a house that went up 10x the rate of inflation couldn’t predict their tax bill. What happens when they can’t pay their taxes? The government takes it.
        tptacek 7y ago
        This is an unserious argument. ED and property taxes aren't comparably unpredictable. An obvious illustration of this would be the fact that most places in the US don't have California's cap, and people manage tax planning just fine. If your real argument is, essentially, "taxation is theft", that's a coherent position, but since most people don't agree with the premise, you're not left with much to contribute to this particular discussion.

scarface74 7y ago

Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there. The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land? I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....

harryh 7y ago
I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted..... Property taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes that exist. They are an excellent way to fund the government.
- scarface74 7y ago
  How are they "economically efficient"? It doesn't cost anymore to serve someone in a million dollar home than a $200K home. Besides that you get into situations where richer neigborhood have better services, better funded school systems, etc.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Because they don't discourage otherwise positive economic activity.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Do you feel the same way about the government taking private property via eminent domain to build a Walmart?
      - harryh 7y ago
        No.
        scarface74 7y ago
        What's the difference? Either way you're taking property for "positive economic activity". A Walmart can bring more jobs than a group of houses....
        tptacek 7y ago
        One obvious difference is that property taxes are applied uniformly and predictably --- a whole industry exists to plan around them --- and eminent domain is not, so widespread application of ED would create uncertainty that would discourage positive activity.
        scarface74 7y ago
        What’s “predictable” about having to pay taxes on a property that you don’t know how much will appreciate? Someone who bought a house 30 years ago while they were working, paid it off and had enough in savings to pay their bills but not pay taxes on a house that went up 10x the rate of inflation couldn’t predict their tax bill. What happens when they can’t pay their taxes? The government takes it.
        tptacek 7y ago
        This is an unserious argument. ED and property taxes aren't comparably unpredictable. An obvious illustration of this would be the fact that most places in the US don't have California's cap, and people manage tax planning just fine. If your real argument is, essentially, "taxation is theft", that's a coherent position, but since most people don't agree with the premise, you're not left with much to contribute to this particular discussion.