4 ms·

TLDR: Probably not. > State by state, neighborhood by neighborhood, black families pay 13 percent more in property taxes each year than a white family would in

TLDR: Probably not. > State by state, neighborhood by neighborhood, black families pay 13 percent more in property taxes each year than a white family would in the same situation, a massive new data analysis shows. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/02/black-property-tax/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/02/black-pro... https://web.archive.org/web/20211127203735/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/02/black-property-tax/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211127203735/https://www.washi...

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Wouldn't that be because they can only afford the rundown house in the bad neighborhood, but the city has not corrected the tax levy because people keep living there? Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. It's more likely the city retained the levied amount and did not change it after the white people moved. Now because it's in a "bad" neighborhood, appraisal values fall, but the city government still believes it retains it's specific value.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  > Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. One would hope so. But your unsourced claim isn't especially compelling given that the post you are replying to directly provided evidence to the contrary.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    Aren't the taxes in the vast majority of cities determined exclusively by Democrats? Edit: Looks like only a strong majority as opposed to the vast majority: https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_the_100_largest_cities https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_t...
    - hammock 5y ago
      I'd be curious to see the figures for city councils, not just mayors. I believe in most municipalities they vote on the tax changes. Chicago has 50 aldermen (city councilmen) and not a single official Republican. That has been the case for at least a couple decades if I recall correctly.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    The statement is too strong, but I think there is a point to be made, using facts not in dispute. The de facto segregation or concentration of minorities in urban areas, in say, the northeastern US, and the progression to having the highest tax rates in areas with declining tax base, without a doubt, produces a substantial correlation between higher tax rates and minorities' property. Is that an excuse for anything? Of course not. But it's institutional racism that does not require specific human beings to look at skin color and discriminate. Institutional racism hardly rules out there being also regular discrimination. But when a problem is pervasive everywhere, and intractable, shouldn't institutional racism, the way the system produces outcomes without individual intent, be a primary focus? Both because it might be a larger contributor to the problem and because, while difficult, reforming it might be easier than changing the nature of individuals. [P.S. Other people in this thread are making this an either/or, to try to dismiss evidence of ordinary discrimination. I'm not, just saying I think institutional racism should be a priority]
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Suppose we accept as a given that this hypothetical town with a declining tax base and concomitant increasing tax rate represents institutional racism. What should (can?) that town do about it to address the problem?
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        Empirically? They got a casino. In general, I think it's a technical problem that lives in the details. How can institutional racism be anything else, as it is defined?
        MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
        Sounds more like you need a full on revolution to change that then.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
perl4ever 5y ago
It's clear in the area where I live that the poorest urban areas have the highest tax rates. The cost of government doesn't seem to be proportional to the tax base, so the taxes are higher with respect to assessments, and people who can, move out of the jurisdiction, making it worse over time. In order to solve the problem, it seems important to ascertain whether it's institutional racism or direct discrimination. I don't know the answer to why local government can't function on a fixed percentage of the tax base everywhere. Something that made an impression on me years ago, was how a bike trail ran from a well-off suburb into a small city, and after a snowfall, the plowing stopped exactly at the city limits. They had, and have, about the highest tax rates anywhere but they basically did not plow. In the data set you reference, I wonder how they deal with different owners grieving (or not) their assessment.
- asiachick 5y ago
  > I don't know the answer to why local government can't function on a fixed percentage of the tax base everywhere That seems pretty obvious no? Town of 100k people each making $20k a year, taxed at 10% (just making a number up) means you have $200 million in taxes. Vs another town with 100k people each making $50k a year means you have $500 million on taxes. Further, probably (maybe) the town with people only making $20k a year, the residence probably need more government support (examples: free meals at schools, free child care, more policing (lower incomes correlates with more crime). etc... Given that more services are needed in a town with lower-income people it makes total sense to me at least that the taxes would need to be higher. Heck, even if they didn't need more services, a 100k people need the same services but the tax base of the lower-income people is lower so they need higher taxes to pay for the same services for the 100k people. The alternative is the higher income town pays for the services of the low-income town. That happens to some degree via federal grants in the USA but I suspect most people in the high income town would not want to be paying for the low-income town's needs. I don't see any racism or discrimination here. It just seems like fact. 1 < 2. There's no racism or discrimination in that fact. If there is any discrimination, it's why that low-income town has low-incomes, not why it's taxes cost more.
  - perl4ever 5y ago

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

Wouldn't that be because they can only afford the rundown house in the bad neighborhood, but the city has not corrected the tax levy because people keep living there? Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. It's more likely the city retained the levied amount and did not change it after the white people moved. Now because it's in a "bad" neighborhood, appraisal values fall, but the city government still believes it retains it's specific value.

seoaeu 5y ago
> Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. One would hope so. But your unsourced claim isn't especially compelling given that the post you are replying to directly provided evidence to the contrary.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Aren't the taxes in the vast majority of cities determined exclusively by Democrats? Edit: Looks like only a strong majority as opposed to the vast majority: https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_the_100_largest_cities https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_t...
  - hammock 5y ago
    I'd be curious to see the figures for city councils, not just mayors. I believe in most municipalities they vote on the tax changes. Chicago has 50 aldermen (city councilmen) and not a single official Republican. That has been the case for at least a couple decades if I recall correctly.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  The statement is too strong, but I think there is a point to be made, using facts not in dispute. The de facto segregation or concentration of minorities in urban areas, in say, the northeastern US, and the progression to having the highest tax rates in areas with declining tax base, without a doubt, produces a substantial correlation between higher tax rates and minorities' property. Is that an excuse for anything? Of course not. But it's institutional racism that does not require specific human beings to look at skin color and discriminate. Institutional racism hardly rules out there being also regular discrimination. But when a problem is pervasive everywhere, and intractable, shouldn't institutional racism, the way the system produces outcomes without individual intent, be a primary focus? Both because it might be a larger contributor to the problem and because, while difficult, reforming it might be easier than changing the nature of individuals. [P.S. Other people in this thread are making this an either/or, to try to dismiss evidence of ordinary discrimination. I'm not, just saying I think institutional racism should be a priority]
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Suppose we accept as a given that this hypothetical town with a declining tax base and concomitant increasing tax rate represents institutional racism. What should (can?) that town do about it to address the problem?
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Empirically? They got a casino. In general, I think it's a technical problem that lives in the details. How can institutional racism be anything else, as it is defined?
      - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
        Sounds more like you need a full on revolution to change that then.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

perl4ever 5y ago

It's clear in the area where I live that the poorest urban areas have the highest tax rates. The cost of government doesn't seem to be proportional to the tax base, so the taxes are higher with respect to assessments, and people who can, move out of the jurisdiction, making it worse over time. In order to solve the problem, it seems important to ascertain whether it's institutional racism or direct discrimination. I don't know the answer to why local government can't function on a fixed percentage of the tax base everywhere. Something that made an impression on me years ago, was how a bike trail ran from a well-off suburb into a small city, and after a snowfall, the plowing stopped exactly at the city limits. They had, and have, about the highest tax rates anywhere but they basically did not plow. In the data set you reference, I wonder how they deal with different owners grieving (or not) their assessment.

asiachick 5y ago
> I don't know the answer to why local government can't function on a fixed percentage of the tax base everywhere That seems pretty obvious no? Town of 100k people each making $20k a year, taxed at 10% (just making a number up) means you have $200 million in taxes. Vs another town with 100k people each making $50k a year means you have $500 million on taxes. Further, probably (maybe) the town with people only making $20k a year, the residence probably need more government support (examples: free meals at schools, free child care, more policing (lower incomes correlates with more crime). etc... Given that more services are needed in a town with lower-income people it makes total sense to me at least that the taxes would need to be higher. Heck, even if they didn't need more services, a 100k people need the same services but the tax base of the lower-income people is lower so they need higher taxes to pay for the same services for the 100k people. The alternative is the higher income town pays for the services of the low-income town. That happens to some degree via federal grants in the USA but I suspect most people in the high income town would not want to be paying for the low-income town's needs. I don't see any racism or discrimination here. It just seems like fact. 1 < 2. There's no racism or discrimination in that fact. If there is any discrimination, it's why that low-income town has low-incomes, not why it's taxes cost more.
- perl4ever 5y ago