4 ms·

In Amsterdam, the tax laws were based on the number of feet (or meters) of street frontage. Hence even long ago houses in Amsterdam tended to go up rather than

In Amsterdam, the tax laws were based on the number of feet (or meters) of street frontage. Hence even long ago houses in Amsterdam tended to go up rather than out. (I don't have a reference for this so it may not be completely correct). Clearly tax laws should focus on frontage, but even more they should focus on the long term costs of the city to provide the infrastructure.

pooper 5y ago
Quick question: who collects the taxes? Is it the local government or the central government? I suspect we need to take property taxes away from the local government to the federal government in the US so businesses cannot pressure local governments to give them a handout for opening their business there.
ejb999 5y ago
>>Clearly tax laws should focus on frontage, That really doesn't make any sense at all imo; if you have a flag lot, i.e. a small amount of frontage with a 100 acres behind it accessed by the 200'ft of road frontage, shouldn't that be taxed higher than someone with a 1/4 lot also with 200' of frontage? I object to the current state of property taxes altogether - seen too many people (in some areas) that buy a house live in in for 30 years, pay off their mortgage and are forced to sell it because all of a sudden the property taxes are $40K/year. Doesn't seem right to me. IMO, taxing people on income is much fairer - by definition as you income goes up, you can afford to pay more - but having a house that you live in go up in value really doesn't give you more ability to pay the tax bill, and we shouldn't be in the business of taxing people out of their houses. 2nd, 3rd, 4th houses - ok in that cases, but a person living in their only house shouldn't be forced to sell it just because it went up in value.
- neilparikh 5y ago
  > taxing people on income is much fairer - by definition as you income goes up, you can afford to pay more It's fairer in that sense, but it's not fairer in the sense of who gets the benefits from the taxes. Suppose the government constructs a transit line from income taxes. Then, the property values (and rents) near the transit line go up. So the renters in that neighbourhood essentially end up paying twice: once through their income taxes, and once through the increase in the rents they pay. On the other hand, the landowners (both landlords and owner-occupiers) essentially get "free" wealth. That doesn't seem very fair to me. Fundamentally, property values go up when the neighbourhood becomes more desirable. But the desirability comes from the actions of the community as a whole, not just the landowner. Property tax is a way for the community as a whole to reclaim (some of) the wealth that comes from that desirability. > but a person living in their only house shouldn't be forced to sell it just because it went up in value. There's a relatively easy fix for that: allow them to defer the property tax to death or when they sell the property. So they still get to live there, but when they leave, they can pay for the taxes from the profits from the sale. If we think that it's unacceptable for people to have to pay extra for when their house goes up in value, why do we think it's acceptable for them to profit from it?
hnuser847 5y ago
That seems way more sensible than what we have the US and is more akin to the “land tax” system that’s talked about a lot here. The property tax scheme we use in the US only “works” as long as the city is growing. The moment the population stagnates or starts declining, the city rapidly becomes unsustainable and must rely on funds from the state or federal government to pay for basic maintenance and services.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  IMO, land tax usually refers to a Georgist land value tax. That certainly would increase taxes for underdeveloped, large plots. I do wonder though if it's fair to expect people who live in high-density areas to pay for the lifestyle of people who want to get away from society. I wish we could have a true land tax that's fairly high and identical regardless where the land is. Sprawl has a lot of negative externalities; financial for city and states as well as environmental.

pooper 5y ago

Quick question: who collects the taxes? Is it the local government or the central government? I suspect we need to take property taxes away from the local government to the federal government in the US so businesses cannot pressure local governments to give them a handout for opening their business there.

ejb999 5y ago

>>Clearly tax laws should focus on frontage, That really doesn't make any sense at all imo; if you have a flag lot, i.e. a small amount of frontage with a 100 acres behind it accessed by the 200'ft of road frontage, shouldn't that be taxed higher than someone with a 1/4 lot also with 200' of frontage? I object to the current state of property taxes altogether - seen too many people (in some areas) that buy a house live in in for 30 years, pay off their mortgage and are forced to sell it because all of a sudden the property taxes are $40K/year. Doesn't seem right to me. IMO, taxing people on income is much fairer - by definition as you income goes up, you can afford to pay more - but having a house that you live in go up in value really doesn't give you more ability to pay the tax bill, and we shouldn't be in the business of taxing people out of their houses. 2nd, 3rd, 4th houses - ok in that cases, but a person living in their only house shouldn't be forced to sell it just because it went up in value.

neilparikh 5y ago
> taxing people on income is much fairer - by definition as you income goes up, you can afford to pay more It's fairer in that sense, but it's not fairer in the sense of who gets the benefits from the taxes. Suppose the government constructs a transit line from income taxes. Then, the property values (and rents) near the transit line go up. So the renters in that neighbourhood essentially end up paying twice: once through their income taxes, and once through the increase in the rents they pay. On the other hand, the landowners (both landlords and owner-occupiers) essentially get "free" wealth. That doesn't seem very fair to me. Fundamentally, property values go up when the neighbourhood becomes more desirable. But the desirability comes from the actions of the community as a whole, not just the landowner. Property tax is a way for the community as a whole to reclaim (some of) the wealth that comes from that desirability. > but a person living in their only house shouldn't be forced to sell it just because it went up in value. There's a relatively easy fix for that: allow them to defer the property tax to death or when they sell the property. So they still get to live there, but when they leave, they can pay for the taxes from the profits from the sale. If we think that it's unacceptable for people to have to pay extra for when their house goes up in value, why do we think it's acceptable for them to profit from it?

hnuser847 5y ago

That seems way more sensible than what we have the US and is more akin to the “land tax” system that’s talked about a lot here. The property tax scheme we use in the US only “works” as long as the city is growing. The moment the population stagnates or starts declining, the city rapidly becomes unsustainable and must rely on funds from the state or federal government to pay for basic maintenance and services.

ajmurmann 5y ago
IMO, land tax usually refers to a Georgist land value tax. That certainly would increase taxes for underdeveloped, large plots. I do wonder though if it's fair to expect people who live in high-density areas to pay for the lifestyle of people who want to get away from society. I wish we could have a true land tax that's fairly high and identical regardless where the land is. Sprawl has a lot of negative externalities; financial for city and states as well as environmental.