4 ms·
WRT the tax point, I've heard this previously, but it doesn't make sense to me yet. For example, a person who owns multiple properties would be in a better pla
by jbm 3y ago
WRT the tax point, I've heard this previously, but it doesn't make sense to me yet.
For example, a person who owns multiple properties would be in a better place to absorb tax hikes by simply passing them along to renters. It would be the single family that ends up the most affected by this.
Moreover, I agree with the person who said "property tax is not a sin tax". The income received would not be invested to help the common person. For example, my municipality would most likely spend the additional money on sports teams, which I firmly oppose, but is something supported by rich interests in the city.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoOther taxed can be reduced if property taxes are increased. And costs do not simply get passed on. If that were true, then no businesses would fail and everyone would enjoy a minimum profit margin. Low property taxes means higher profits for landlords, which means more incentive to hold onto extra properties. Higher property (specifically land value) taxes means the land has to be used more productively to earn a return. Instead of a single family house on a 10k sq ft lot, there would be 3 townhouses, condos, etc. There would also be more incentive for landlords to lower the rent more quickly in response to the market. Right now, lots of “space” sits empty, while income tax from people who work pay for the police and courts to keep that space “secure” for landlords. It is a massive subsidy from workers to non workers.