4 ms·
Well… except that a land value tax would only make home affordability far worse than it already is.
by BirAdam 3y ago
Well… except that a land value tax would only make home affordability far worse than it already is.
- astrange 3y agoIt would make it better, because a property tax punishes improving your property and a land value tax doesn't, so it would make it easier to build apartments where the land value is high and reduce competition for houses where it isn't.
- bsjaux628 3y agoHaven't read the whole LVT thing too deeply but wouldn't it make single households a time bomb? Say I buy a house on the suburbs of a city, 20 years later the city has grown to the point that I'm no longer part of the suburb but inside the city, which means that my taxes would skyrocket because I have an "underdevelop" lot, even though, as a single individual, I don't have the capital to build a higher density complex to cope with the higher taxes
- spiralx 3y agoBut that already happens with property taxes - just look at all the people in California who can only afford to live where they do because their property taxes are fixed at their original rate, and so they cannot afford to move anywhere else within the same area.
- astrange 3y agoThe best approach there isn't to lower taxes (although a deduction for a primary household is fine of course) but to allow them to defer payment until it's sold/they die. Since in this situation their house is also worth several million dollars.
- spiralx 3y agoWhich then significantly exacerbates the potential for a negative equity trap, because moving now requires paying all of those deferred taxes. So the longer you've lived somewhere the more you need to down-value when you move...
- rat87 3y agoI think that's the point. If you live in a high cost of living area you would sell your house and it would be replaced with multi unit housing that would bring down the local cost of living
- rat87 3y agoI think that's the point. If you live in a high cost of living area you would sell your house and it would be replaced with multi unit housing that would bring down the local cost of living
- namlem 3y agoYes but that means your home is now worth a fortune and you can sell it for a windfall.
- BirAdam 3y agoYou’re making the assumption that the current property tax would end and be replaced. Unless this was all done at the county level, that most likely wouldn’t happen. Even then, many jurisdictions would just double tax. They’d argue that one tax was for land and the other for the dwelling. For the poor who lived in an area that was once cheap, they’d simply lose their homes if they haven’t already as they’d be unable to pay these taxes.
- astrange 3y agoI don't think anyone has ever wanted both a land and building value tax. Well, there are wealth tax proponents but I don't believe in those - land taxes are the only good kind of them.
- staticautomatic 3y agoTrue. We should do the opposite and eliminate property taxes on primary residences.
- pbjtime 3y agoBye, schools
- whythre 3y agoSure, why not. American public schools are terrible self-protecting bureaucratic monstrosities. I would be fine with scrapping their funding and reworking the whole system.
- MandieD 3y agoStop relying on local property taxes to fund the schools. That’s a US thing that isn’t replicated in most other well-off countries. The closest thing Germany has to US-style annually-billed property tax is Grundsteuer, and for homeowners, it’s low triple digits at most. It pays for neighborhood streets, sidewalks, storm drains, and (I think) the fire department. We do pay a pretty hefty transfer tax when we buy property - I think it was about 5% of the purchase price, but that’s a one-time thing. Schools are funded out of general revenues, mostly personal and corporate income taxes, assessed nationally. Each state has its own school system, with differing structures and standards.
- alasarmas 3y agoWhat’s more, funding schools from local property taxes keeps the good schools in the rich communities and the bad schools in the poor communities. It prevents equality of opportunity. It is cynical, mean-spirited, and appalling.
- pstuart 3y agoThis is true, having split kids between two districts I've seen this first hand. Funding from state would equalize it, and the rich communities can do their gilding via the PTA. I'd much rather have that then them pulled out of public education entirely.
- namlem 3y agoNo it wouldn't. Homes generally pay less tax. The biggest tax increases by far fall on parking lots. LVT improves home affordability.