3 ms·

Are you in a single family home? If so, I have 0 sympathy. Downsize.

erentz 6y ago
NJ has the highest property tax (I think). Note it’s property tax not land value tax so while it has some effect on real estate prices it doesn’t quite create the same incentive for more efficient land use.
- nine_k 6y ago
  I'd say it may have an inverse effect. Build a nice house on your lot, pay a ton every year. Stay in a shack on that same lot, save a ton every year.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    The value of the land still counts towards the total property value, so it's not an inverse effect, but it does decay the more is built until there's no marginal incentive one way or the other.
u678u 6y ago
No I'm in an 2br apartment with my wife and teenage daughter. Taxes are $1600/mo. Still cheaper than the suburbs with good schools.
- woofyman 6y ago
  You’re apartment is valued at $700,000?
  - closeparen 6y ago
    That’s not a lot for a 2BR with a reasonable commute to New York.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      $700k+ is objectively a large amount of money to spend on housing, more than double the median US home price. Even if it's a middle class home in its local market.
      - closeparen 6y ago
        Housing is inherently local. You can't aggregate over multiple commute sheds and have your conclusion mean anything.
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        Is there some way to look at $700,000 and not think, "Holy shit that's a life changing amount of money for nearly any American."?
        stadium 6y ago
        FOMO is the biggest reason I find not to sell and rent for a while. If I want to buy again in a few years, there is no way to know if the equivalent house would be out of my price range. And I can't think of too many places I would feel safe investing that amount of money given current asset price inflation. Becoming a landlord while renting out something new may be a good option though. Or moving to a low cost of living area.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        closeparen 6y ago
        Life-changing would be living in nicer arrangements, consuming more stuff, doing less work, being more secure. That’s not what’s going on here.
      - rcpt 6y ago
        In California we have Prop 13 which is the polar opposite of the situation in NJ. $700k is half what I'd need to buy a place and still end up with an hour long freeway commute. Also our schools are a joke compared to NJ. But at least taxes are low here. Wait...
  - u678u 6y ago
    Probably higher. I'm not saying I'm struggling, I'm just trying to get some push back on property taxes and how toxic they are. When I was laid off the taxes are a huge burden. I have a mortgage that fixed for 30 years, but property taxes keep going up every year.
    - strken 6y ago
      To reiterate on the original reply, a land value tax is on the value of the land your apartment sits on, but crucially, not on the value of the apartment. If there's a derelict tyre place next door that's on the same area of land and selling for significantly less, your entire building combined pay the same LVT as its owner.
      - seoaeu 6y ago
        Why would you assume that a LVT would be lower than current property taxes? If your land is built up the same as the average density of the surrounding area, then you probably were already paying comparable taxes to all your neighbors and your taxes should be unchanged under LVT.
        strken 6y ago
        I didn't actually say that. I said that if you have an apartment you'd pay less than a derelict tyre place on the same amount of land. If you live in high density residential apartments you'll pay less than lower density neighbours. If the entire area is equally high density, then congratulations, it sounds like you live in a very desirable location in the middle of a lot of public and private infrastructure: if that's the case, you should be taxed, to encourage even higher density development and even more productive use of the land you're on.
        Ericson2314 6y ago
        Aha! we'll here's the joy of different types of averages / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality How do we take the average density? Is it the average height weighted by land area, or floor area? "average height of building on a piece of land" vs "average height of building a piece of floor is in" Well, unless all buildings are the same height, the second average will always be higher, because taller buildings have more floor! Most people would go with the former for the average. And it does make sense in general to average over the fixed thing. But that mean building will pay a greater portion of the total tax revenue than before.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Glad to hear you are in an apartment in the good transit part of NJ! Then a LVT is definitely in your interest as the others say. More stories => less taxes!

NJ has the highest property tax (I think). Note it’s property tax not land value tax so while it has some effect on real estate prices it doesn’t quite create the same incentive for more efficient land use.

nine_k 6y ago
I'd say it may have an inverse effect. Build a nice house on your lot, pay a ton every year. Stay in a shack on that same lot, save a ton every year.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  The value of the land still counts towards the total property value, so it's not an inverse effect, but it does decay the more is built until there's no marginal incentive one way or the other.

u678u 6y ago

No I'm in an 2br apartment with my wife and teenage daughter. Taxes are $1600/mo. Still cheaper than the suburbs with good schools.

woofyman 6y ago
You’re apartment is valued at $700,000?
- closeparen 6y ago
  That’s not a lot for a 2BR with a reasonable commute to New York.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    $700k+ is objectively a large amount of money to spend on housing, more than double the median US home price. Even if it's a middle class home in its local market.
    - closeparen 6y ago
      Housing is inherently local. You can't aggregate over multiple commute sheds and have your conclusion mean anything.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Is there some way to look at $700,000 and not think, "Holy shit that's a life changing amount of money for nearly any American."?
        stadium 6y ago
        FOMO is the biggest reason I find not to sell and rent for a while. If I want to buy again in a few years, there is no way to know if the equivalent house would be out of my price range. And I can't think of too many places I would feel safe investing that amount of money given current asset price inflation. Becoming a landlord while renting out something new may be a good option though. Or moving to a low cost of living area.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        closeparen 6y ago
        Life-changing would be living in nicer arrangements, consuming more stuff, doing less work, being more secure. That’s not what’s going on here.
    - rcpt 6y ago
      In California we have Prop 13 which is the polar opposite of the situation in NJ. $700k is half what I'd need to buy a place and still end up with an hour long freeway commute. Also our schools are a joke compared to NJ. But at least taxes are low here. Wait...
- u678u 6y ago
  Probably higher. I'm not saying I'm struggling, I'm just trying to get some push back on property taxes and how toxic they are. When I was laid off the taxes are a huge burden. I have a mortgage that fixed for 30 years, but property taxes keep going up every year.
  - strken 6y ago
    To reiterate on the original reply, a land value tax is on the value of the land your apartment sits on, but crucially, not on the value of the apartment. If there's a derelict tyre place next door that's on the same area of land and selling for significantly less, your entire building combined pay the same LVT as its owner.
    - seoaeu 6y ago
      Why would you assume that a LVT would be lower than current property taxes? If your land is built up the same as the average density of the surrounding area, then you probably were already paying comparable taxes to all your neighbors and your taxes should be unchanged under LVT.
      - strken 6y ago
        I didn't actually say that. I said that if you have an apartment you'd pay less than a derelict tyre place on the same amount of land. If you live in high density residential apartments you'll pay less than lower density neighbours. If the entire area is equally high density, then congratulations, it sounds like you live in a very desirable location in the middle of a lot of public and private infrastructure: if that's the case, you should be taxed, to encourage even higher density development and even more productive use of the land you're on.
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        Aha! we'll here's the joy of different types of averages / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality How do we take the average density? Is it the average height weighted by land area, or floor area? "average height of building on a piece of land" vs "average height of building a piece of floor is in" Well, unless all buildings are the same height, the second average will always be higher, because taller buildings have more floor! Most people would go with the former for the average. And it does make sense in general to average over the fixed thing. But that mean building will pay a greater portion of the total tax revenue than before.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Glad to hear you are in an apartment in the good transit part of NJ! Then a LVT is definitely in your interest as the others say. More stories => less taxes!