5 ms·

I don't understand why that is a relevant question.

• scarface74 7y ago
  Because people are always willing to tax other people's wealth.
  • harryh 7y ago
    Property taxes aren't wealth taxes, they're consumption taxes. This is obvious when you consider the fact that a person who owns a piece of property outright pays the same property tax as someone who owns a similar piece of property but carries a mortgage.
    • scarface74 7y ago
      Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?
      • harryh 7y ago
        Yes.
        • scarface74 7y ago
          How so?
          • harryh 7y ago
            Some land is more valuable than other land. Living on top of more valuable land consumes a more valuable resource.
            • hundt 7y ago
              You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think. Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property is not, because it also captures the value of the property as an asset. So that's why I think your argument is too broad.
              • harryh 7y ago
                Imputed rent is (roughly) proportional the the value of the property, So a tax on one is the same as a tax on the other.
                • hundt 7y ago
                  Yes, there's a consumption component and a non-consumption component. Of course when either component goes up the total goes up. But the tax is on the total value and therefore it's not a consumption tax.
                  • harryh 7y ago
                    Let's say that imputed rent is, on average, 10% of the total value of the property. That makes a 10% tax on imputed rent the exact same thing as a 1% tax on the value of the property. So your point is really just an argument about the rate, not an argument about the fundamentals of what is being taxed. Note that property taxes tend to be a fraction of sales taxes for exactly this reason.
                    • hundt 7y ago
                      Yes, I understand this point but the ratio between rents and property values varies wildly. So yes you can compute an average ratio and say it is "equivalent" to a tax on imputed rent if you adjust by that ratio, just as you could average out the number of bathrooms in each house and say it is "equivalent" to a bathroom tax. But it's not a very compelling argument!
      • amunicio 7y ago
        This is not a good argument. It would be the equivalent of me asking: Does the trash pickup service, repairing potholes or patrolling the street cost more if the home owner just moved in than if has own the house for 30 years?
        • scarface74 7y ago
          Well, that does argue for my previous stated idea of charging every property owner the same fee for the same service. Trash pickup is actually a great example. Where I live it’s not part of your property taxes. It’s a separate bill and everyone pays the same amount. The city council can set budgets for the different departments and set taxes based on the budget. Neighborhoods already do something similar via homeowner’s association fees and condo fees.