4 ms·

I really don’t like the idea of recurring property tax in general. Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid of

I really don’t like the idea of recurring property tax in general. Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? What if you are old and have run out of money? At least you’ll still have your house. My suggestion is a large one time tax on property purchased for use as a primary residence (second homes don’t count), and then once all original owners die a new tax can be reapplied if relatives want to keep the property (actually, I’m not totally opposed to having all property go to auction upon death). This would allow people to never have to worry about losing their home during their lifetime while also not creating a dynasty of ownership that prevents new things from being built. Edit: are the downvotes for my idea itself because you don’t like it? Or because of the way I explained it? Would be happy to rephrase.

nucleardog 6y ago
> Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Look at what the taxes fund and you'll have your answer why that doesn't really make sense.
- Xcelerate 6y ago
  > Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. In some places, fire protection is already paid directly to the fire department. Roads and transport should be automobile and gas taxes. Trash collection goes to the trash service.
  - klipt 6y ago
    What about public schools?
  - antisthenes 6y ago
    > Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. At the very least, the argument against doing that is so that you, as a homeowner don't have to manage an additional 10-20 accounts to pay the monthly bill for all those services. It creates an administrative overhead that isn't necessary, and would just siphon more money into the bureaucratic machine rather than fixing issues. That's why taxes are bundled and usually pay for a bunch of things at once, rather than having to pay separately for every little thing. It may sound nice as a libertarian thought experiment, but there's a reason it's almost never done in practice.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Um, why do people get to own land, whose creation ages ago the "owners" contributed nothing to? All financing schemes, be they debt or equity, should only exist to promote the creation of useful stuff. Everything else is unproductive bullshit. > What if you are old and have run out of money? At least you’ll still have your house. I've had it with these poor widow(er) / poor retiree arguments. Housing can not be both affordable and a good investment. Maybe we need a one-time cash transfer to compensate people currently balls-deep in the current system to get the fuck out of the way, but this absolutely is not an argument to continue to turn a blind eye to our continued abject failures at good land use and just allow more generations empathy-arising "middle Americans" to become the next status-quo-justifying boogiemen. > actually, I’m not totally opposed to having all property go to auction upon death Ah we agree on this one :) > This would allow people to be able to never worry about losing their home during their lifetime while also not creating a dynasty of ownership. The problem is that the population grows during people's lifetime, and so the inefficiencies magnify. Put simply, we need empty-nesters to always be downsizing to conserve land.
- hpkuarg 6y ago
  We don't need some complicated cash transfer scheme -- land value tax will let the market solve this problem over time, and ensure that no economic rent inures to the landowner, who (as you rightfully mention) did nothing to create the value of a patch of Earth. One can dream of a government fully funded only by land value tax...[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
  - jfb 6y ago
    As a resident of the great Dominion of Canada, I was very happy to see that Chrystia Freeland, the new Canadian minister of finance at one point sort of kind of endorsed the LVT.
Analemma_ 6y ago
> My suggestion is a large one time tax on property purchased for use as a primary residence This is similar to the "stamp duty" system in Australia, and it's horrible (it actually competes with Prop 13 for the title of Worst Law in the World). Just like Prop 13, it chokes supply because nobody dares sell a house whose value has increased over time. And just like Prop 13, intelligent people have been trying to get rid of it for decades, but it's a legal zombie that won't die.

nucleardog 6y ago

> Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Look at what the taxes fund and you'll have your answer why that doesn't really make sense.

Xcelerate 6y ago
> Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. In some places, fire protection is already paid directly to the fire department. Roads and transport should be automobile and gas taxes. Trash collection goes to the trash service.
- klipt 6y ago
  What about public schools?
- antisthenes 6y ago
  > Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. At the very least, the argument against doing that is so that you, as a homeowner don't have to manage an additional 10-20 accounts to pay the monthly bill for all those services. It creates an administrative overhead that isn't necessary, and would just siphon more money into the bureaucratic machine rather than fixing issues. That's why taxes are bundled and usually pay for a bunch of things at once, rather than having to pay separately for every little thing. It may sound nice as a libertarian thought experiment, but there's a reason it's almost never done in practice.

Ericson2314 6y ago

Um, why do people get to own land, whose creation ages ago the "owners" contributed nothing to? All financing schemes, be they debt or equity, should only exist to promote the creation of useful stuff. Everything else is unproductive bullshit. > What if you are old and have run out of money? At least you’ll still have your house. I've had it with these poor widow(er) / poor retiree arguments. Housing can not be both affordable and a good investment. Maybe we need a one-time cash transfer to compensate people currently balls-deep in the current system to get the fuck out of the way, but this absolutely is not an argument to continue to turn a blind eye to our continued abject failures at good land use and just allow more generations empathy-arising "middle Americans" to become the next status-quo-justifying boogiemen. > actually, I’m not totally opposed to having all property go to auction upon death Ah we agree on this one :) > This would allow people to be able to never worry about losing their home during their lifetime while also not creating a dynasty of ownership. The problem is that the population grows during people's lifetime, and so the inefficiencies magnify. Put simply, we need empty-nesters to always be downsizing to conserve land.

hpkuarg 6y ago
We don't need some complicated cash transfer scheme -- land value tax will let the market solve this problem over time, and ensure that no economic rent inures to the landowner, who (as you rightfully mention) did nothing to create the value of a patch of Earth. One can dream of a government fully funded only by land value tax...[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
- jfb 6y ago
  As a resident of the great Dominion of Canada, I was very happy to see that Chrystia Freeland, the new Canadian minister of finance at one point sort of kind of endorsed the LVT.

Analemma_ 6y ago

> My suggestion is a large one time tax on property purchased for use as a primary residence This is similar to the "stamp duty" system in Australia, and it's horrible (it actually competes with Prop 13 for the title of Worst Law in the World). Just like Prop 13, it chokes supply because nobody dares sell a house whose value has increased over time. And just like Prop 13, intelligent people have been trying to get rid of it for decades, but it's a legal zombie that won't die.