4 ms·

I agree that different factors cause some land to be more valuable than others. I'd argue that the factors you've listed are relatively easy to factor into an

I agree that different factors cause some land to be more valuable than others. I'd argue that the factors you've listed are relatively easy to factor into an appraisal. Property taxes, in comparison, are really hard to compute. Each jurisdiction has different rules. There are different valuation methodologies. If you add a 2 car garage, what the useful life. What depreciation schedule should be used. How should inflation be accounted for. I agree with your comment generally and am not sure what part of the original comment doesn't make sense to you. EDIT: Reread my original comment and see your point now. I phrased the "easy" part too strongly. I mean "easy" in relative terms... compared to what's being done currently, but agree the wording wasn't great.

dsizzle 5y ago
Yeah, and these features are easier to track than the interior of the house. As an aside, I've often been surprised how little some of these features get valued. For instance, I've looked at neighborhoods where one side of the street backs to other houses and the other side backs to parkland. The nicer side is generally more expensive, but it's not a huge effect, and often homes on the bad side go for more money (because of the building itself).
- gbhn 5y ago
  Ultimately wouldn't these rates be set politically? As in, there'd be one politician who says "raise the tax and do this" and another who says "lower the tax and stop doing that" and voters just pick what they want to happen.
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Aren’t all tax rates set politically?
dnautics 5y ago
> Property taxes, in comparison, are really hard to compute Mark to market. If you sell your home, then that value is the fixed price of the home until the next sale event.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  I bought my home from my pal for a dollar, and sold him my old house for a dollar too.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  Then you end up with preposterous situations like California boomers hanging onto property where the value (and thus the property tax) was last assessed in the 70s.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    this is a far better situation than rich neighbors moving in next to a lower-middle-class family and driving them out of the neighborhood by bringing up the assessed value.
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      Since rich people are rare, by definition this wouldn't happen very often. Unlike with the current situation in California where it happens _everywhere_. And such a lower middle class family would still be selling their house at a higher value than for which they bought it, so it's hard to see how they are being robbed. And don't you think it's funny: we can't have rich people moving here because that would drive up land taxes, and we can't have poor people moving here because that would drive down the total resale value. I guess people should only be allowed to live among their exact socioeconomic equals ...
      - dnautics 5y ago
        you're neglecting the important asymmetry. If we fail to tax a rich person, it doesn't actively hurt someone, it may passively prevent some people (who would have wanted to move in) from having an easier time with certain life-paths. If you eject a middle class person from their home, you are actively forcing them to find a new life-path. Suppose that lower-middle class person is a mobility-challenged elderly person on a fixed income that is already being eaten away by inflation. Yes, sure, they get to sell their house at a high mark to market, but they have to suffer the hassle of finding a new place, which at best is equivalent quality minus income tax on LTCG, on an eroding deadline. That is a really shitty situation to be in. > this wouldn't happen very often Then, I suppose we would have no reason for the term "gentrification", if it's that damn rare.

dsizzle 5y ago

Yeah, and these features are easier to track than the interior of the house. As an aside, I've often been surprised how little some of these features get valued. For instance, I've looked at neighborhoods where one side of the street backs to other houses and the other side backs to parkland. The nicer side is generally more expensive, but it's not a huge effect, and often homes on the bad side go for more money (because of the building itself).

gbhn 5y ago
Ultimately wouldn't these rates be set politically? As in, there'd be one politician who says "raise the tax and do this" and another who says "lower the tax and stop doing that" and voters just pick what they want to happen.
- dsizzle 5y ago
  Aren’t all tax rates set politically?

dnautics 5y ago

> Property taxes, in comparison, are really hard to compute Mark to market. If you sell your home, then that value is the fixed price of the home until the next sale event.

cool_dude85 5y ago
I bought my home from my pal for a dollar, and sold him my old house for a dollar too.
_dain_ 5y ago
Then you end up with preposterous situations like California boomers hanging onto property where the value (and thus the property tax) was last assessed in the 70s.
- dnautics 5y ago
  this is a far better situation than rich neighbors moving in next to a lower-middle-class family and driving them out of the neighborhood by bringing up the assessed value.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    Since rich people are rare, by definition this wouldn't happen very often. Unlike with the current situation in California where it happens _everywhere_. And such a lower middle class family would still be selling their house at a higher value than for which they bought it, so it's hard to see how they are being robbed. And don't you think it's funny: we can't have rich people moving here because that would drive up land taxes, and we can't have poor people moving here because that would drive down the total resale value. I guess people should only be allowed to live among their exact socioeconomic equals ...
    - dnautics 5y ago
      you're neglecting the important asymmetry. If we fail to tax a rich person, it doesn't actively hurt someone, it may passively prevent some people (who would have wanted to move in) from having an easier time with certain life-paths. If you eject a middle class person from their home, you are actively forcing them to find a new life-path. Suppose that lower-middle class person is a mobility-challenged elderly person on a fixed income that is already being eaten away by inflation. Yes, sure, they get to sell their house at a high mark to market, but they have to suffer the hassle of finding a new place, which at best is equivalent quality minus income tax on LTCG, on an eroding deadline. That is a really shitty situation to be in. > this wouldn't happen very often Then, I suppose we would have no reason for the term "gentrification", if it's that damn rare.