Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High property taxes are good

brooock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 620 posts

Re: High property taxes are good

#301

Post by fundad »

mutatio wrote: post #140
vanilla_nut wrote: post #2

In my region of northern New Hampshire, there are a lot of retired folks with houses rising from $200k-ish values to closer to $500k-ish values in the last 5-10 years. As such, there's a lot of discussion around lowering property taxes to help these retirees. In my opinion? Fuck 'em. Property taxes are a brilliant method of perfectly progressive taxation: you can always choose to live in a cheaper home. If your home…

Isn't your envy/entitlement misplaced, by your own argument "you can always choose to live in a cheaper home".

Low taxes incentivizes a retiree to stay in possible a more spacious home than they need instead of selling to a young family. If you are a retired couple or a single without any large adult children living with you, you're better off with less to maintain.

Re: High property taxes are good

#302

Post by parineum »

spicymaki wrote: post #54
Victerius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early born privilege.

This is local democracy in action. Vested landowners can put up barriers to entry to prop up their investments. They can also hand it down to their family, entrenching wealth for generations. Sucks to be an outsider.

The biggest barrier to entry for first time home buyers is by far mortgage rates.

Low mortgage rates cause house values to go up because value is based on what an affordable monthly payment for that house.

Low rates means value goes up to equalize payments which is mostly superfluous for people with only one home and good for anyone with investment property but it causes a 20% down payment to be an unsurmountable barrier to entry for those looking to enter the market.

Home ownership is one if not the best way for families to generationally escape poverty.

Re: High property taxes are good

#303

Post by always2slow »

brockwhittaker wrote: post #240
always2slow wrote: post #231

This article doesn't take into account the negative migration that's been happening from Cook county for the past two decades. Less demand means lower prices. Also the claim that Chicago even has high property taxes for housing isn't really true. See here: https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/news/chicago-property... and here: https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/50-... Currently trapped renting…

They label property taxes as an absolute value paid, rather than as a percentage. Illinois per the Tax Foundation had the second highest rate*. In fact, it speaks to Illinois' and Chicago's affordability** that with such a high marginal rate, their property taxes as a dollar amount are on-par with many other states. * https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-property-taxes-in-you... ** https://resources.oxfordeconomics…

I'm not sure what you're saying, yes Illinois property taxes are high but that's mainly because of the collar counties around cook (https://www.civicfed.org/civic-federation/blog/2017-effectiv...). It's hilarious that you think that high taxes has done anything good for Illinois. the state is bankrupt and in absolute shambles financially. The taxes are high on everything to try to dig out of the hole (which will never happen), effective sales tax in the Chicago area is now over 10%!! All of this nets reduced buying power so yeah, housing will probably be slightly cheaper on average but at the cost of standard of living all around. Your argument is absolutely clueless to the reality on the ground. High property taxes just look good on a spreadsheet.

Re: High property taxes are good

#304

Post by landemva »

Loughla wrote: post #241
landemva wrote: post #191

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…

If you don't mind me asking, where do you live? Because my area is very similar, but all 'reciprocal easements allowing owners to pass' are all based on county/state law, and enforced via such. Anything paved, tar/chipped, graveled, or traveled via dirt is a county road and subject to county maintenance and oversight.

An easement is a form of a property contract, not a law. It is enforceable in court by parties to the easement.

Maybe look into the lot lines and confirm if they extend through the 'road'. Then go to county clerk and recorder and find what easements were filed there. Lots of misunderstanding about this, even in local government.

Have those laws been tested? Published appellate cases specific to the law may be very interesting. An encumberance or taking requires compensation. Also, be careful to not use motor vehicle laws and words like 'drive', as you can do what you want on private property. My child was practicing use of movement via a personal conveyance when 11 years old, in what looks like a car on what looks like a road.

Re: High property taxes are good

#305

Post by zamalek »

tptacek wrote: post #119

High property taxes are clearly not intrinsically good; they're passed on to renters, and so they decrease affordability. Land value taxes sidestep this (increasing density decreases marginal tax burden on tenants), but they're not going to happen. You have to design policy for the world we actually have, not the one you'd prefer to live in. (Property taxes are a real problem where I live; we're an upper-middle-class…

While true, renting is a roach motel no matter what property taxes are.

Re: High property taxes are good

#306

Post by Supermancho »

mdorazio wrote: post #280
anonymousiam wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 solved two problems at once. It forced a reduction in the out-of-control government spending, and it saved seniors from losing their houses. IMHO the only problem with Prop 13 was the "grandfathering" clause. The cuts should have been perpetual and across the board.

> It forced a reduction in the out-of-control government spending No, it didn't. California just kept adding taxes everywhere else to make up the difference and still had an annual deficit most of the 13 years I lived there. > It saved seniors from losing their houses Why are seniors magically allowed to be immune to basic market forces when no one else is?

> Why are seniors magically allowed to be immune to basic market forces when no one else is?

Because they have fixed incomes (generally). This income is immune to market forces. That's why.

While many elderly invested wisely (and at the right time) to become wealthy, especially when leveraging dips (like during the 80s), it doesn't change the average case. Living month to month on a fixed income is the norm after retirement.

Re: High property taxes are good

#307

Post by sokoloff »

tptacek wrote: post #287
sokoloff wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renters are overwhelmingly living in properties that have mortgages against them and commercial loans are always deductible. The deduction for mortgages on owner-occupied property serves to put prospective owners (including current renters) on a more equal footing when bidding against landlords for property.

It is an immense giveway to the top income quintiles, which receive between 70-80% of the benefit, and giving "prospective owners" preference over "landlords" practically by definition reduces density and thus affordability.

It's not about giving preference to owner-occupants; it's about neutralizing the preference to landlords that would otherwise result.

Re: High property taxes are good

#309

Post by danans »

EddieDante wrote: post #150
danans wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda.

> Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda.

Only when the government is authoritarian. You can't vote out a dictator, king, warlord, or mob boss.

Re: High property taxes are good

#310

Post by Dracophoenix »

yellowapple wrote: post #269
Dracophoenix wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even assuming that effect does happen, it'd be considerably worse under a property tax. So your answer is to dismiss my position without evidence? Your point that property tax is worse than LVT isn't justified by your claim. If land values are determined by government assessment like property values are, then you're still paying property tax, albeit with an obfuscated input for improvement in the calculation which…

> So your answer is to dismiss my position without evidence? My evidence is your evidence. If you're arguing that a parcel of land increases in value due to the existence of improvements on neighboring parcels, then so, too, would improvements on the parcel in question be more valuable (since they're already built in a desirable location). Hence: the impact for land tax + improvement tax would be worse under your pre…

Not just neighboring parcels. Any improvements on one's own property (separate from the land itself) would be factored into LVT through an indirect tax on improvements via a higher assessment value. While certains areas can be "nice", not all homes in a given area are equally "nice". Some parcels of land will have their values "propped up" by the home that is sitting on it as well as proximate homes while others are "weighed down" in the same manner. This would result in unequal LVT assessments even for parcels of the same acreage and quality within a given area. As a result, It's difficult to assess the "actual" land value seperatley. From this, one can conclude that an LVT on a parcel with less valuable property or (a property proximate to less desirable property) plus an improvement tax can be lower in cost than an LVT in on a parcel with property that is more in demand.

> In reality, the niceness of surrounding homes is hardly a factor; proximity to economic centers (be it directly or by proximity to rapid transit) ...

Homes can be valuable precisely because they're located away from economic centers. That too is geography in action. And if COVID telecommuting is an indication of market preferences, home-owning adults prefer small, out-of-the-way towns with plenty of space, low property taxes, and good internet connections. So I'd hardly think that proximity to economic centers (usually cities) is as relevant it used to be.

Post reply on HN