201–210 of 620 posts
The article overlooks one important factor: Raising property taxes would lower house values, reducing loan sizes, and therefore bank profits. We can't have that money being squandered on social services or infrastructure.
How would raising property taxes lower house values?
Property taxes are unconstitutional and immoral. They are an implicit nationalization of all property because there is no way to own property unencumbered. Implicitly the govt owns all the land and charges you rent. The level, high or low, is irrelevant to the principle.
I'm gonna blow your mind right now: the foundation of all law is the government's monopoly on violence. Might makes right. The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."
In my view the govt necessarily has a monopoly on the use of force which is unavoidable. The important part of the "social contract" is when is it valid for the govt to use that force. The US Constitution originally laid out when the use of that force was moral. Using force to extract tax payment from property owners is not on that list and turns the govt into criminals operating under the color of the law which is terrible situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reasonable and holistic argument to be made for the generalized version of your position, but specifically wanting people to be removed from their homes by forces they can't control under the rationale, "fuck 'em", is counterproductive and - I don't think it's uncalled for to say - immoral. It's important to have a base level of humanity for people, regardless of what side of which broken social dynamic the…
> removed from their homes by forces they can't control A caveat here is that many of these people vote against denser zoning in their neighborhood. So, in a way, the appreciation of their primary home is due to factors that they do control.
on balance, the housing price appreciation, and therefore tax burden, on "these people" is functionally entirely due to external macroeconomic factors, which you can clearly see on the Zillow Housing price index by typing in "New Hampshire" or any relevant zip code: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/
The average NH home increased $7k-$10k in value per year linearly for the last 10 years!
Then it increased $25k Jan '20 -> Jan '21.
Then it increased *$53k* Jan '21 -> Jan '22.
10 years worth of price appreciation, and therefore tax appreciation, occurred in a 2 year window.
I understand many people have a pet housing policy issue they care about, but trying to attribute this step-function change in tax burden to "New Hampshire zoning laws" and "these people" as opposed to the massive increase in demand caused by Covid urban flight/WFH & relaxed monetary policy is completely unreasonable.
There is so much incompetence and political game playing regarding property taxes. I work in commercial real estate development. We negotiated a TIF district in a small midwestern town to help redevelop their vacant mall. In theory, if we could redevelop the mall and fill it with new stores, the sales taxes and property taxes from this growth would greatly benefit the city over the long term and help finance this ris…
If anything, this sounds like a system working, and you doing a bit of whining. Yeah, there's political game playing, that's called the price of localism and democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sounds absolutely terrible. I'm sorry. Hope your town gets it's shit fixed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s worse than them just being abandoned how? Nobody else wanted them, nearly anybody could have bought dilapidated houses in poverty stricken neighborhoods extremely cheaply.
They are still abandoned. They are instead now owned by people that have the means, but no intention of making them better. It has been shown that LVT reduces blight: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
Did you mean to post a different source? The one you posted doesn't "show" anything, equivocates on whether LVT actually reduces blight in the few instances where it's been practiced, and makes meaningful suggestions for solutions other than LVT that it indicates have been shown IN PRACTICE to reduce blight (e.g. a land bank).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there was a supply of cheaper housing, I'd agree with this wholeheartedly. Part of the problem is that, in a lot of places (SF, NYC, Seattle, etc) you can price folks into homelessness. Sure, no one is entitled to live in a specific area, but for those who built their lives there, have a community, family, it's cruel to tell them "move to Nowheresville, OH so you can afford a roof"
I mean, either you are cruel to home owners who have capital or you are cruel to poor people. I know where my priorities would be. Or we could of course try to remove the cruelty completely by not using a market system to manage a natural monopoly (space in a community). But if you choose cruelty, at least be cruel to those that can choose to suffer as opposed that cannot really escape
False equivalence. There's no reason you have to be cruel to either.
You can always build more housing or provide financial services to help poorer people buy homes. Or just, you know, lower the cost of homes so property taxes don't have to be astronomical and force older people out of their homes to begin with.
If housing costs and property taxes are so high it forces older people out, I don't see how that somehow benefits poor people anyway. They still can't afford those stupid expensive houses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna blow your mind right now: the foundation of all law is the government's monopoly on violence. Might makes right. The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."
> The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die." That same contract is also in force in the absence of a government monopoly on violence, with the difference that the "and die" part gets implemented far more frequently. That's why anarchists (of any stripe - left or right) shouldn't be trusted, since what they are really aiming for is to destroy democratic institutions and replace t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that necessarily the case? The market has much better information about the demand for 3bdr apartments than cities and counties do. Mostly we have the opposite problem: top-down policy from local governments impedes the construction of 3bdr apartments.
It's a mistake to assume that builders are responding to demand. All actors in a market have only partial information. To take my city as an example, the housing market started heating up, so builders started constructing condos and tried to pack as many units into their building as possible, thus improving supply. This created a vibrant urban centre for young people who live on their own in modest apartments and dro…
When it comes to housing construction and tax incentives, what they need to do is (1) set tax incentives to discourage egregious misuse and encourage density, and (2) get out of the way.
As someone living in the middle of one of these debates right now, the idea that we need to carefully control the mix of 1bdr apartments vs 3bdr apartments is... risible? The frontline of this issue is SFZ, not what kind of apartments we build.