4 ms·

Permits are for both safety _and_ tax reasons. Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased, by the same l

by parsimo2010 5y ago

Permits are for both safety _and_ tax reasons. Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased, by the same logic that people with more expensive houses should pay more in taxes than people with cheaper houses. And property taxes, if properly codified and enforced, are a good way to ensure rich people can’t avoid taxes by hiding it in real estate. They also incentivize people to actually use land for productive purposes rather than hoard. So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically, I’ll argue that the permitting and inspection process in most cities is a good thing for society despite the personal hassle. It ensures that buildings are safe and helps the city assess the changing value of homes. Quick edit: I will acknowledge that your point is correct that inspections and taxes cause a lot of work to be done without notifying the city and hoping they don’t notice.

nine_k 5y ago
> Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased Thank you for a succinct explanation of the benefits of land value tax over the current system.
kelnos 5y ago
> So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically I could easily see (and probably agree with) the argument that we should be taxing land and not improvements. It feels a bit unfair to spend time and money to improve your own land, not be able to realize any gain/income from that improvement until you sell it, but meanwhile be on the hook for extra taxes every year. To be clear, I think property taxes (or land-value taxes) are reasonable: desirable land is a scarce resource, and we should ensure landowners are doing productive things with it. But the current assessment process leaves much to be desired IMO. (And that's without even getting into California's Prop 13 nonsense.)
- parsimo2010 5y ago
  Yeah, I wasn't trying to make the case that property taxes are perfect, but they are what we have. There are some bad features such as discouraging maintenance to keep the taxable value down. But it does act partly as a land value tax, since the land value goes into the assessed value calculation. I'm sure some people would disagree with this argument, but buildings do increase the value of the land, albeit in a temporary manner. I personally would pay more for an acre with a house on it than an otherwise comparable acre with nothing. Sure, land is truly permanent and finite while houses fall apart over a few decades and can be renewed. But for my human timescale, the presence of a building is a valid consideration in the taxable value of land, as much as other things such as the terrain and proximity to water. And if you take a land value tax and also consider the value of the buildings on it then you end up with property tax. I'd support a different set of taxes in the US (I'm pretty sure that's where OP built the shed). I'd happily let go of property taxes in favor of a wealth tax and a land value tax. I'd even take an honest accounting of how much things cost and forcing the people and politicians to get our tax to align with our spending so we aren't passing ever increasing bills to our children. But with the current political system there is a 100% chance those ideas would be corrupted, so I'll settle with the inefficient taxes we have now and try to be a good sport about paying them.

nine_k 5y ago

> Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased Thank you for a succinct explanation of the benefits of land value tax over the current system.

kelnos 5y ago

> So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically I could easily see (and probably agree with) the argument that we should be taxing land and not improvements. It feels a bit unfair to spend time and money to improve your own land, not be able to realize any gain/income from that improvement until you sell it, but meanwhile be on the hook for extra taxes every year. To be clear, I think property taxes (or land-value taxes) are reasonable: desirable land is a scarce resource, and we should ensure landowners are doing productive things with it. But the current assessment process leaves much to be desired IMO. (And that's without even getting into California's Prop 13 nonsense.)

parsimo2010 5y ago
Yeah, I wasn't trying to make the case that property taxes are perfect, but they are what we have. There are some bad features such as discouraging maintenance to keep the taxable value down. But it does act partly as a land value tax, since the land value goes into the assessed value calculation. I'm sure some people would disagree with this argument, but buildings do increase the value of the land, albeit in a temporary manner. I personally would pay more for an acre with a house on it than an otherwise comparable acre with nothing. Sure, land is truly permanent and finite while houses fall apart over a few decades and can be renewed. But for my human timescale, the presence of a building is a valid consideration in the taxable value of land, as much as other things such as the terrain and proximity to water. And if you take a land value tax and also consider the value of the buildings on it then you end up with property tax. I'd support a different set of taxes in the US (I'm pretty sure that's where OP built the shed). I'd happily let go of property taxes in favor of a wealth tax and a land value tax. I'd even take an honest accounting of how much things cost and forcing the people and politicians to get our tax to align with our spending so we aren't passing ever increasing bills to our children. But with the current political system there is a 100% chance those ideas would be corrupted, so I'll settle with the inefficient taxes we have now and try to be a good sport about paying them.