3 ms·
Yeah but that makes it worse, doesn't it? The benefits to being under-assessed compound year on year, as do the costs of being over-assessed.
by _dain_ 3y ago
Yeah but that makes it worse, doesn't it? The benefits to being under-assessed compound year on year, as do the costs of being over-assessed.
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoWell you can challenge the assessment (within 6 months of moving in I think).
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y agoCan you challenge other peoples assessments? Because that's what's needed.
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoWhy is that needed?
- devilbunny 3y agoThe obvious implication is that there are large properties that have appreciated greatly in value but have not been re-assessed, leading to artificially low property tax on those properties that haven't changed hands in thirty years while those who purchased since that time are re-assessed at purchase. Not dissimilar to Prop 13 in California: a massive one-time gift to those who owned in the area at the time (and, in California, their descendants).
- ElevenLathe 3y agoI don't know anything about limey tax law, but just reading this thread makes the point very clear: somebody thinks that property taxes are too low across the board, and have been made up for with other taxes (presumably head or consumption taxes) that impact working people more than property taxes, which scale roughly with wealth. If you agree that this is the problem, challenging your own assessment doesn't solve anything unless you are one of the rich property owners who are underpaying. Even then, you'd also need to reduce the non-property (the head or consumption taxes) portion of taxes in order to relieve the burden on working people.
- _dain_ 3y agobecause it would slow down the unjust concentration of land ownership into fewer and fewer hands.