High property taxes are good

Post by nomel » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 9:23 PM UTC

bcatanzaro wrote: post #100

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.

Grandma is a millionaire. She can take out a reverse mortgage to pay her taxes and she'll still be a millionaire. Or she can agree to a lien that pays her taxes upon her death or move. We don't need to worry about grandma losing her house.

Post by arrosenberg » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #322

hammock wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difference without a meaningful distinction. Houses are bought on credit, that credit isn’t approved without an appraisal that supports the price being paid, and that appraisal is done using comps similar to a tax assessment.

These end up with wildly differing figures. Somehow my purchase price is $772k, my insured price is $225k, my property tax valuation is $302k, and the market price now is either $800k or $1200k, depending on if you're asking to sell it or use it as collateral! Nobody agrees on what property is worth.

Post by naasking » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 9:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #289

naasking wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm no anti-government squish, but there is no evidence, and a lot of countervailing evidence, that local governments can effectively (or even non-harmfully) make policy to influence the housing mix. I disagree. No planning has lead to many ghettos. The planning we've done here has avoided ghettos. I think the data is very clear on that. > When it comes to housing construction and tax incentives, what they need to…

I see no evidence at all that increased density is a livability problem for families, and plenty of --- in fact, overwhelming --- that inadequate density is a bar for access to communities in the first place. So, no, I reject this argument outright.

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 9:31 PM UTC

googlryas wrote: post #315

TimPC wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My city assesses land and structure value separately as part of property taxes so having them assess just land instead seems like less work not more.

Mine does that too, but the process is clearly flawed because you can't buy land for the assessed price, and you can't build a structure on that land for the assessed value.

Post by Arainach » Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

bbatha wrote: post #168

chadash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem (IMO) is that it's not so simple to value land. Where I live, being two blocks over can make a huge difference. It's easy to say "you paid $500k for your house, so we're gonna tax you on $500k". It's much harder to accurately say what someone would have paid for the land were it not developed. I understand the benefits of LVT, but how do you solve this? Are there any good examples of governments t…

Outside of California "you paid $500k for your house, so we're gonna tax you on $500k" is not how property taxes work. The town/city/county typically does property assessments on regular basis (usually annually). These are based on doing comparisons with like houses in your neighborhood and are equal prone to "2 blocks over is way more desirable".