7 ms·

property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. USA has about 2.5 billion acres. 1/4 acre per perso

property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. USA has about 2.5 billion acres. 1/4 acre per person in an average area tax free is reasonable.

CrazyStat 4y ago
Sure, I'll happily give you a quarter acre in rural Nevada tax free. A quarter acre in Palo Alto, though?
dwater 4y ago
The way people in the US plan for old age and retirement, and the way they are treated by society, is terrible and property taxes are aspect of that. But the only way you should be able to own land tax free is if there are no government services provided on that land. No utilities, no public road, no emergency services, no municipal services. I don't know of anywhere in the US where that is an option. Unless you're saying you want that funding to come from a different source, which would mean a total restructuring of the tax system in the majority of localities.
- kashkhan 4y ago
  The traditional (neoclassical economics) view is that taxes pay for services, but that's not how it really works. The federal government buys these services with money it creates, and then only later does it tax it back. For state an local governments this is mostly true but even there the federal government helps out. What you want is for the wealthy to pay for the poor and old and those without much wealth or income.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    State and local governments in the US cannot create money. They either tax it first or run a debt by selling bonds.
- sudden_dystopia 4y ago
  Yes, get rid of property taxes and completely overhaul the tax system. You could easily replace property taxes with a VAT which I would find much preferable because it’s more flexible. Illinois property taxes robbed my family of a farm that had been in our family for 200 years. My grandparents simply couldn’t afford $20k in taxes every damn year. Patently absurd.
  - nisegami 4y ago
    That's obviously not ideal for your family, but it's precisely what property taxes (or more directly a land value tax) is designed to do. If your grandparents couldn't use the land in a way that covered the property taxes, then the argument is that the use of the land is likely inefficient and it would be better overall if the land was being used more productively. It sounds like the system did exactly what it was supposed to do. Edit: not to mention that VAT and sales taxes are considered regressive taxes that disproportionately burden the less wealthy. I would much quicker remove VAT than property taxes.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      It's Illinois. The state is a financial disaster. They are jacking property taxes because they don't know of any other way. Certainly spending less and rooting out the massive systemic corruption do not appear to be on the table.
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      It may be what property taxes are designed to do but the social agreement that allows them is that taxes are designed to raise funds, not force people out of their homes. The Romans tried this. They ended up with their citizen farmers walking off the land because of the taxes, and ended up going from some of the most advanced farmers to not being able to feed themselves.
  - landemva 4y ago
    I experienced VAT in Europe for some years and it is an overly complex sales tax. Simply have a sales tax which excludes uncooked food at grocery stores and excludes tax on some reasonably small amount of household energy each month. Then delete other taxes.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  > tax free if there are no government services provided on that land You're still giving the "it's property" framing waaay more credit than it's due. Remember, granting someone exclusivity to a contested resource means preventing other people who would like to use the resource from using the resource. It's entirely reasonable for those people, represented in aggregate by the government, to ask for compensation in return, even if the government provided the landowner no additional services beyond the exclusivity. The entire concept of "owning" land is just a hustle to argue against paying taxes on it.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Maybe we should be honest and say that you can't "own" land? Government always has eminent domain, and power of seizure for unpaid taxes. You are effectively renting the land from the government. Why not just call it that. Give people a 99 year lease instead of a mortgage and property tax. If you do nothing with the land, your lease can be terminated. If you improve the land (build a house on it), you can depreciate that on your taxes as a leasehold improvement.
    - oasisbob 4y ago
      The complexities in land "ownership" are widely acknowledged and commonly taught: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      Yes, exactly. The details need to be hashed out. I'm not convinced that 99 years is right, it's long enough to ignore and then pretend to be surprised when it comes up for renewal. Perhaps 35 years and no termination clauses, to make it easier to plan around? It would allow one house for having children and one house for retirement. The improvements mechanism would likewise need iteration. I am interested to see how the various global experiments in these directions will pan out, though it looks like right now the market is betting that the 99 year leases will turn into perpetual ownership. That's unfortunate, because perpetual ownership is directly responsible for most of the largest perverse incentive problems in the real estate industry, not to mention ongoing gigantic deadweight loss.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  Why not solve it like social security? You pay in over most of your life, then retire. If you call the fire department after you’ve retired, they’ll still come because you spent a life time paying into it.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > Why not solve it like social security? For the same reason that I'm planning my retirement without social security. Politicians can't be trusted long term. They'll write laws to allow them to use funds that were previously protected.
- landemva 4y ago
  I live in a town like this. 'Roads' are actually reciprocal easements to allow all other land owners to pass. Each lot has water well and septic, though one group of houses has a large shared water system which pools the individual well permits. Electricity and gas and internet are private companies using an easement. Police and fire can easily be funded by sales tax, just like the public transit. Alternatively, land owners can voluntarily pay yearly for police and fire, or opt-out just like people are not forced by government to buy homeowner insurance.
  - rat87 4y ago
    Sounds absolutely terrible. I'm sorry. Hope your town gets it's shit fixed
    - landemva 4y ago
      Am enjoying coffee by the creek right now. It's awesome, but to each his/her own.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Sounds quite nice to me. A good example of how private agreements such as easements can solve a lot of problems that people think require "government" solutions.
  - zbyte64 4y ago
    Probably don't have bears in the area: https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
    - landemva 4y ago
      Brown and black, though not grizzly. The moose are more dangerous. There are benefits to shared services, the question is how to fund the services and if it should be voluntary.
lief79 4y ago
Fairly sure this is to increase population density in the area, so selling old homes for tear downs would be a net gain. The more reasonable approach to this would be discounts for the primary residence, and possibly discounts for populated units, depending on if you are targeting home owners / overall population and housing cost. Quarter acre per family might make sense across the US as a whole with large swathes of empty land across the middle, but it makes no sense if you look at the average individual given the percentage of the country living in urban areas.
yellowapple 4y ago
> property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. When LVT is used to fund UBI, that ability is automatic: the "break even" point (where your taxes minus dividends are zero) would represent you owning a "reasonable amount of land" (as measured by value). If you own more than that, you pay for it; if you own less than that, you're paid for it.
jpollock 4y ago
Property Taxes aren't terrible for old people. How the mille-rate is set is terrible for old people. A fixed mille-rate results in taxes going up as value goes up. This might be difficult to plan for and manage. However, many cities will simply put a lien on the property and collect when the property is sold/transferred/person dies. However, this isn't necessarily how things need to be done. In New Zealand, the mille-rate is set to clear the budget. That way, the mille-rate changes with the city's budget, not valuations. If the city wants to do more, they put it into the budget and say "do you want to pay for it?". Then the mille-rate is changed and everyone's taxes change. If your house changes value, your taxes don't change! Unless your neighborhood changes its relative valuation, then it might go up or down.
- waterlaw 4y ago
  Cities would stop caring about new residents then (as they've done in Canada.) They mostly cater to the existing residents that own homes and partake in municipal voting. They'll stop creating new housing developments and put massive permitting fees on proposals for new construction.
  - jpollock 4y ago
    No, it doesn't stop development. New houses increase the value of the land it is sitting on, so the tax from that plot of land will go up. The entire goal should be to encourage residents to partake in municipal voting. That's everyone's responsibility as citizens.
Johnny555 4y ago
USA has about 2.5 billion acres I don't see how that's relevant, not all land is equally well suited for housing, especially among the elderly who are likely to need some sort of living assistance and regular access to healthcare. property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. I think something like California's Prop 13 that puts a cap on property tax increases is a better idea -- but it should only apply to owner occupied primary residences, not second homes or investment properties.
- kashkhan 4y ago
  land use must be fair. You should tax excessive ownership of land. Most old do not live in assisted care. ANd healthcare is independent of land ownership. CA is extremely screwed up on how it taxes. I used to live in Cupertino where some people were paying taxes on 2 million dollar lots valued at 100k.
  - Johnny555 4y ago
    Land is not equally valuable so you can't look at the total land area of the USA and declare that everyone should be entitled to one tax free plot of land, land in the middle of Manhattan has a different value than land in the middle of a mountain range that's covered in 20 feet of snow half the year and is only accessible by helicopter. Most old do not live in assisted care. And healthcare is independent of land ownership. I didn't say "assisted care" my father lived almost his entire life on his own, but still had assistance from his children and occasionally a home healthcare worker - this is a lot harder to do if his allocated tax-free plot of land is 100 miles from family or healthcare services. Healthcare is independent of land ownership, but isn't independent of location - after one medication change, he had to go back to the doctor daily for monitoring for a couple weeks, then weekly after that for 6 months. How would he do that it it was a 4 hour round trip to the nearest healthcare facility?
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    Yes, people who have the property value go up around them should be kicked out of their homes. Goodbye old people and minorities who live in affordable neighborhoods that become gentrified. Kick them out on the street for failing to plan for possible future dynamics in their neighborhoods. It's the only fair thing to do.
Originami 4y ago
Just allow the elderly to accrue property/land tax debts against the value of the property, redeemed when sold/transferred or on death.
- slt2021 4y ago
  reverse mortgage should do the same trick
- ct0 4y ago
  Boulder Colorado comes to mind with this idea. Live in the city for a certain amount of time and be over a certain age and your taxes are cut in half. Much better than paying the tax and the government giving it back.
- Aunche 4y ago
  Agreed. Reducing or eliminating the property tax benefits the beneficiaries more than the elderly themselves.
schumpeter 4y ago
Most states and counties I’ve lived in in the southeast US either exempt or minimize property taxes on residents that are over 65. In fact, my current area (Cobb county, GA) nimbys keep trying to block assisted living residences. The argument is that old people move in, don’t pay into local funds, but the burden is hoisted on other younger families instead.
rcpt 4y ago
In many states low income seniors can opt out of property taxes and take a lien on the house instead. This way they feel zero tax pressure no matter what happens to the local economy. Examples are California Tax Postponement Program and New Jersey senior freeze.
Aunche 4y ago
1/4 acre is the roughly the footprint of 432 Park Ave which is worth billions of dollars. There's no way a single old guy should be able to squat on that tax free. The lack of property/land value taxes hurts anyone who isn't retired. I care much more about poor young people who get priced out of moving to a better job in the city than an old person who is "forced" to sell their multi-million dollar single family home. If an old person insists on living in a place where they can't afford property taxes, there are plenty of people willing to pay their property taxes until they pass in exchange for a stake in equity of their home.
imtringued 4y ago
It is called a citizen's dividend and it even rewards people who use less land than the average.

CrazyStat 4y ago

Sure, I'll happily give you a quarter acre in rural Nevada tax free. A quarter acre in Palo Alto, though?

dwater 4y ago

The way people in the US plan for old age and retirement, and the way they are treated by society, is terrible and property taxes are aspect of that. But the only way you should be able to own land tax free is if there are no government services provided on that land. No utilities, no public road, no emergency services, no municipal services. I don't know of anywhere in the US where that is an option. Unless you're saying you want that funding to come from a different source, which would mean a total restructuring of the tax system in the majority of localities.

kashkhan 4y ago
The traditional (neoclassical economics) view is that taxes pay for services, but that's not how it really works. The federal government buys these services with money it creates, and then only later does it tax it back. For state an local governments this is mostly true but even there the federal government helps out. What you want is for the wealthy to pay for the poor and old and those without much wealth or income.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  State and local governments in the US cannot create money. They either tax it first or run a debt by selling bonds.
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
Yes, get rid of property taxes and completely overhaul the tax system. You could easily replace property taxes with a VAT which I would find much preferable because it’s more flexible. Illinois property taxes robbed my family of a farm that had been in our family for 200 years. My grandparents simply couldn’t afford $20k in taxes every damn year. Patently absurd.
- nisegami 4y ago
  That's obviously not ideal for your family, but it's precisely what property taxes (or more directly a land value tax) is designed to do. If your grandparents couldn't use the land in a way that covered the property taxes, then the argument is that the use of the land is likely inefficient and it would be better overall if the land was being used more productively. It sounds like the system did exactly what it was supposed to do. Edit: not to mention that VAT and sales taxes are considered regressive taxes that disproportionately burden the less wealthy. I would much quicker remove VAT than property taxes.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    It's Illinois. The state is a financial disaster. They are jacking property taxes because they don't know of any other way. Certainly spending less and rooting out the massive systemic corruption do not appear to be on the table.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    It may be what property taxes are designed to do but the social agreement that allows them is that taxes are designed to raise funds, not force people out of their homes. The Romans tried this. They ended up with their citizen farmers walking off the land because of the taxes, and ended up going from some of the most advanced farmers to not being able to feed themselves.
- landemva 4y ago
  I experienced VAT in Europe for some years and it is an overly complex sales tax. Simply have a sales tax which excludes uncooked food at grocery stores and excludes tax on some reasonably small amount of household energy each month. Then delete other taxes.
jjoonathan 4y ago
> tax free if there are no government services provided on that land You're still giving the "it's property" framing waaay more credit than it's due. Remember, granting someone exclusivity to a contested resource means preventing other people who would like to use the resource from using the resource. It's entirely reasonable for those people, represented in aggregate by the government, to ask for compensation in return, even if the government provided the landowner no additional services beyond the exclusivity. The entire concept of "owning" land is just a hustle to argue against paying taxes on it.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Maybe we should be honest and say that you can't "own" land? Government always has eminent domain, and power of seizure for unpaid taxes. You are effectively renting the land from the government. Why not just call it that. Give people a 99 year lease instead of a mortgage and property tax. If you do nothing with the land, your lease can be terminated. If you improve the land (build a house on it), you can depreciate that on your taxes as a leasehold improvement.
  - oasisbob 4y ago
    The complexities in land "ownership" are widely acknowledged and commonly taught: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Yes, exactly. The details need to be hashed out. I'm not convinced that 99 years is right, it's long enough to ignore and then pretend to be surprised when it comes up for renewal. Perhaps 35 years and no termination clauses, to make it easier to plan around? It would allow one house for having children and one house for retirement. The improvements mechanism would likewise need iteration. I am interested to see how the various global experiments in these directions will pan out, though it looks like right now the market is betting that the 99 year leases will turn into perpetual ownership. That's unfortunate, because perpetual ownership is directly responsible for most of the largest perverse incentive problems in the real estate industry, not to mention ongoing gigantic deadweight loss.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
Why not solve it like social security? You pay in over most of your life, then retire. If you call the fire department after you’ve retired, they’ll still come because you spent a life time paying into it.
- nomel 4y ago
  > Why not solve it like social security? For the same reason that I'm planning my retirement without social security. Politicians can't be trusted long term. They'll write laws to allow them to use funds that were previously protected.
landemva 4y ago
I live in a town like this. 'Roads' are actually reciprocal easements to allow all other land owners to pass. Each lot has water well and septic, though one group of houses has a large shared water system which pools the individual well permits. Electricity and gas and internet are private companies using an easement. Police and fire can easily be funded by sales tax, just like the public transit. Alternatively, land owners can voluntarily pay yearly for police and fire, or opt-out just like people are not forced by government to buy homeowner insurance.
- rat87 4y ago
  Sounds absolutely terrible. I'm sorry. Hope your town gets it's shit fixed
  - landemva 4y ago
    Am enjoying coffee by the creek right now. It's awesome, but to each his/her own.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Sounds quite nice to me. A good example of how private agreements such as easements can solve a lot of problems that people think require "government" solutions.
- zbyte64 4y ago
  Probably don't have bears in the area: https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
  - landemva 4y ago
    Brown and black, though not grizzly. The moose are more dangerous. There are benefits to shared services, the question is how to fund the services and if it should be voluntary.

lief79 4y ago

Fairly sure this is to increase population density in the area, so selling old homes for tear downs would be a net gain. The more reasonable approach to this would be discounts for the primary residence, and possibly discounts for populated units, depending on if you are targeting home owners / overall population and housing cost. Quarter acre per family might make sense across the US as a whole with large swathes of empty land across the middle, but it makes no sense if you look at the average individual given the percentage of the country living in urban areas.

yellowapple 4y ago

> property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. When LVT is used to fund UBI, that ability is automatic: the "break even" point (where your taxes minus dividends are zero) would represent you owning a "reasonable amount of land" (as measured by value). If you own more than that, you pay for it; if you own less than that, you're paid for it.

jpollock 4y ago

Property Taxes aren't terrible for old people. How the mille-rate is set is terrible for old people. A fixed mille-rate results in taxes going up as value goes up. This might be difficult to plan for and manage. However, many cities will simply put a lien on the property and collect when the property is sold/transferred/person dies. However, this isn't necessarily how things need to be done. In New Zealand, the mille-rate is set to clear the budget. That way, the mille-rate changes with the city's budget, not valuations. If the city wants to do more, they put it into the budget and say "do you want to pay for it?". Then the mille-rate is changed and everyone's taxes change. If your house changes value, your taxes don't change! Unless your neighborhood changes its relative valuation, then it might go up or down.

waterlaw 4y ago
Cities would stop caring about new residents then (as they've done in Canada.) They mostly cater to the existing residents that own homes and partake in municipal voting. They'll stop creating new housing developments and put massive permitting fees on proposals for new construction.
- jpollock 4y ago
  No, it doesn't stop development. New houses increase the value of the land it is sitting on, so the tax from that plot of land will go up. The entire goal should be to encourage residents to partake in municipal voting. That's everyone's responsibility as citizens.

Johnny555 4y ago

USA has about 2.5 billion acres I don't see how that's relevant, not all land is equally well suited for housing, especially among the elderly who are likely to need some sort of living assistance and regular access to healthcare. property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free. I think something like California's Prop 13 that puts a cap on property tax increases is a better idea -- but it should only apply to owner occupied primary residences, not second homes or investment properties.

kashkhan 4y ago
land use must be fair. You should tax excessive ownership of land. Most old do not live in assisted care. ANd healthcare is independent of land ownership. CA is extremely screwed up on how it taxes. I used to live in Cupertino where some people were paying taxes on 2 million dollar lots valued at 100k.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  Land is not equally valuable so you can't look at the total land area of the USA and declare that everyone should be entitled to one tax free plot of land, land in the middle of Manhattan has a different value than land in the middle of a mountain range that's covered in 20 feet of snow half the year and is only accessible by helicopter. Most old do not live in assisted care. And healthcare is independent of land ownership. I didn't say "assisted care" my father lived almost his entire life on his own, but still had assistance from his children and occasionally a home healthcare worker - this is a lot harder to do if his allocated tax-free plot of land is 100 miles from family or healthcare services. Healthcare is independent of land ownership, but isn't independent of location - after one medication change, he had to go back to the doctor daily for monitoring for a couple weeks, then weekly after that for 6 months. How would he do that it it was a 4 hour round trip to the nearest healthcare facility?
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Yes, people who have the property value go up around them should be kicked out of their homes. Goodbye old people and minorities who live in affordable neighborhoods that become gentrified. Kick them out on the street for failing to plan for possible future dynamics in their neighborhoods. It's the only fair thing to do.

Originami 4y ago

Just allow the elderly to accrue property/land tax debts against the value of the property, redeemed when sold/transferred or on death.

slt2021 4y ago
reverse mortgage should do the same trick
ct0 4y ago
Boulder Colorado comes to mind with this idea. Live in the city for a certain amount of time and be over a certain age and your taxes are cut in half. Much better than paying the tax and the government giving it back.
Aunche 4y ago
Agreed. Reducing or eliminating the property tax benefits the beneficiaries more than the elderly themselves.

schumpeter 4y ago

Most states and counties I’ve lived in in the southeast US either exempt or minimize property taxes on residents that are over 65. In fact, my current area (Cobb county, GA) nimbys keep trying to block assisted living residences. The argument is that old people move in, don’t pay into local funds, but the burden is hoisted on other younger families instead.

rcpt 4y ago

In many states low income seniors can opt out of property taxes and take a lien on the house instead. This way they feel zero tax pressure no matter what happens to the local economy. Examples are California Tax Postponement Program and New Jersey senior freeze.

Aunche 4y ago

1/4 acre is the roughly the footprint of 432 Park Ave which is worth billions of dollars. There's no way a single old guy should be able to squat on that tax free. The lack of property/land value taxes hurts anyone who isn't retired. I care much more about poor young people who get priced out of moving to a better job in the city than an old person who is "forced" to sell their multi-million dollar single family home. If an old person insists on living in a place where they can't afford property taxes, there are plenty of people willing to pay their property taxes until they pass in exchange for a stake in equity of their home.

imtringued 4y ago

It is called a citizen's dividend and it even rewards people who use less land than the average.