4 ms·
This isn't right. Property tax is almost always in proportion to the area of living space on the property. Even anti-redistributionists acknowledge that taking
by bwhite 17y ago
This isn't right. Property tax is almost always in proportion to the area of living space on the property.
Even anti-redistributionists acknowledge that taking 10% of the income of someone making $5e5 will reduce that person's lifestyle less than taking 10% of someone making $35k. I think the issue is more that this isn't the case -- the 500,001st dollar is taxed at a much higher rate than the 35,001st dollar.
- Locke1689 17y agoI think it depends on the state -- certain states separate the taxes into Land Value Tax (LVT) and then actual "property" taxes, which is IIRC the improvement value of the building on the property. Both of these combined would be a real estate tax. I had assumed that they were taxing LVT, but the article is a little poor on details. I think the issue is more that this isn't the case -- the 500,001st dollar is taxed at a much higher rate than the 35,001st dollar. I can't quite tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing here. I was saying that the property tax is unfair in this case. There are many ways in which someone who has a high income could be taxed lower than someone with a lower income (which is what the progressive income tax is supposed to correct).
- bwhite 17y agoIt is certainly possible for someone with a higher income to be taxed at an overall rate that's less than the overall rate of someone with a lower income. It is true that this subverts the plain-meaning intention of the tax system (though I am skeptical that at least some of those "loopholes" aren't unintended at all) but it's not obviously unfair.