Live data from Hacker News

High property taxes are good

brooock.com

51–60 of 620 posts

Re: High property taxes are good

#51

Land value taxes are even better. Property taxes provide a disincentive to making the land more productive. A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents.

The advantages of a land-value tax is the central idea of Georgism/Distributism. There have been some interesting discussions about this on HN. Recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493005

Re: High property taxes are good

#52

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…

[deleted]

Re: High property taxes are good

#54
post #27

And, thanks to Proposition 13, California has entirely removed this policy tool from consumer housing. A tremendous amount of our problems, from high rent to gridlock, can be traced back to this decision.

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.

Re: High property taxes are good

#55

This community is deranged. All forms of taxation are messed up, the funds end up in grifters pockets, funding wars, or in black holes. The last place I want my money is in a politicians pocket. But this community overwhelmingly supports this concept. If a slave is taxed at 100% and an indentured servant is taxed at 20% - what does that make you?

So, what is your solution for building infrastructure? Funding the military? Social programs? Snow removal? Libraries? Education?

Re: High property taxes are good

#56
If the homevoter hypothesis is true then the counterargument to this is just the argument itself. Property taxes cool speculation, but I'm me, and I bought into the neighborhood and thus want to see line go up.

Yes, local politics is inherently more tailored, but it's also more vulnerable to conflicts of interest. Most local town councils are controlled by an oligopoly of the loudest homeowners who will vote down anything that is perceived to impact their home prices. The people who want affordable housing are not part of the voting quorum because they do not live or own the neighborhood.

In other words, don't say the quiet part out loud!

Re: High property taxes are good

#57

Neighborhood a few minutes from me has an insane tax rate. It comes to $1000 a month for a $325k house. Keeps the riffraff away...and me...but they can afford their roads so...

That's crazy and that city is doomed.

My in-laws spend more than that but their home is worth more. They've owned it free and clear for like 20 years but they are getting out this year.

Their city used to be full of families, much higher values, lots of great local businesses and some big business headquarters. That's all gone and it's not desirable at all.

Re: High property taxes are good

#58

Land value taxes are even better. Property taxes provide a disincentive to making the land more productive. A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents.

What's the difference between the two in reality? Theoretically, with a land value tax, "improvements" (however that's defined) aren't added to the final tax calculation. However better-looking homes are then a signal that drive up demand for (and therefore price of) land so ultimately it seems LVT does punish improvements if only indirectly.

Re: High property taxes are good

#59
I'm not disgreeing that there can be valid benefits of higher property taxes.

The problem with it though is that it is a very regressive tax, especially in states that get the majority of their income from property tax as compared to income taxes (I'm looking at you Texas).

> They can be adjusted annually based off the needs of a local market

Or, in the case of Texas, a very large portion of property taxes in urban centers ends up as recapture and goes into a state-controlled slush fund. These portions (school taxes) are not actually adjusted at all.

> the money collected from property taxes doesn't evaporate from a local area

See above statement again. This may be true for city-level property taxes though.

> Retirees and low income individuals are often able to make cases to reduce their tax burden

I would disagree with this. There are exceptions written into the law that provide exemptions for some of these groups (which are often abused and disincentivise "good" use), but overall lower-end properties have many more comparables to set value based off of, and tends to be much closer to "market". These residents also don't tend to have the funds to many these arguments, and commission-based tax-appealers don't stand to make much money taking on these cases (the absolute dollar value is relatively low). Further, high-value properties without many comparables are the easiest ones to argue for lower tax burden on.

Finally, when property values actually do decrease (due to central bank action on interest rates, etc) it can be difficult to get the assessed value lowered without an actual sale.

Tldr, the current implementation of property taxes in many locations is extremely regressive.

Post reply on HN