High property taxes are good • Hacker News Board

Re: High property taxes are good

#581

Post by bcatanzaro » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #341

bcatanzaro wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Grandma is a millionaire. You must come from a privileged family.

The only reason to say grandma can’t pay her property tax is because grandma’s house has appreciated substantially and now grandma is wealthy.

Wealthy people should pay their taxes.

Re: High property taxes are good

#582

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #579

horsawlarway wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> C'mon, even setting aside the fact that the victim here walks away with a giant pile of money Money is a medium of exchange. There are items that are literally not for sale, and the excuse of "but they got money!!!!" is completely unacceptable as a replacement. How are you going to value the writing on the walls of the home my neighbor from her now-deceased son? How are you going to value the 6 (six!) graves of the…

Huh? In the scenario you describe, someone is paying below the neighborhood average in property tax, so someone makes an offer on their property, and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average. Then they stay in their house and pay their fair share of property tax.

You've never lived in a transitional neighborhood, pretty clearly.

> and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average.

First - this is not in line with the previous posts. What stops me from simply declaring my value is 0 until someone makes an offer and then suddenly it's the right value. Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away. If I only have to declare at time of potential sale, the declaration is useless.

Second - having lived in a transitional neighborhood, if your house is valued at the neighborhood average, it will be bought in 30 seconds, sight unseen, usually by a corporation that plans to rehab it (because it was last updated in the 70s) and then rent it forever.

And that second point isn't a hypothetical, it's literally already happening: https://www.cbs46.com/2022/06/03/its-an-everyday-occurrence-...

Basically - money isn't everything, and maximizing utility in a purely capitalistic sense is not a set of values shared by enough people to make this work.

If you limited this to only commercially zoned land, then maybe - but you have a social contract with all those people who bought their houses, and violating that social contract, especially in a way like this, is a recipe for disaster.

Re: High property taxes are good

#583

Post by dubswithus » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #482

dubswithus wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bought it to live in for 5 years and then you flipped it for more money than you bought it? That's the definition of successful speculation.

The difference is turning a profit was not my primary motivation, owning my primary residence was. If making money was my top priority then there are several other houses I looked at that I would have bought instead.

Imagine someone offered you a house but the agreement was that you could only sell it for what you bought it for. I doubt you would buy it considering there are other options on the market where you could profit in the future. It's 100% speculation. It's part of the package.

Re: High property taxes are good

#584

Post by raldi » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #582

raldi wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? In the scenario you describe, someone is paying below the neighborhood average in property tax, so someone makes an offer on their property, and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average. Then they stay in their house and pay their fair share of property tax.

You've never lived in a transitional neighborhood, pretty clearly. > and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average. First - this is not in line with the previous posts. What stops me from simply declaring my value is 0 until someone makes an offer and then suddenly it's the right value. Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away. If I only have to decla…

I've lived in transitional neighborhoods at several points in my life.

> Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away.

Why would the buyer go away? The state itself could maintain offers on any properties lowballing their property taxes. But that wouldn't be necessary, because at any time, there would always be ample interest in purchasing real estate for discount prices. You say this yourself:

> if your house is valued at the neighborhood average, it will be bought in 30 seconds

...but again, it sounds like you misunderstand my proposal. In 30 seconds, someone would offer to buy, and then the current property owner would have the choice of either selling, or keeping their property but raising their property-tax assessment to either that amount, or the local average, whichever is lower.

Re: High property taxes are good

#585

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #584

horsawlarway wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never lived in a transitional neighborhood, pretty clearly. > and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average. First - this is not in line with the previous posts. What stops me from simply declaring my value is 0 until someone makes an offer and then suddenly it's the right value. Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away. If I only have to decla…

I've lived in transitional neighborhoods at several points in my life. > Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away. Why would the buyer go away? The state itself could maintain offers on any properties lowballing their property taxes. But that wouldn't be necessary, because at any time, there would always be ample interest in purchasing real estate for discount prices. You say this yourself:…

Ah - now I'm fairly convinced you haven't actually bought real estate.

There is no such thing as a "standing offer" to buy a house. They're a contract with very clear start and end dates (most offers are good for between 72 hours and two weeks).

This is because both parties have to agree at time of exchange on the value of the good, and the person making the offer usually needs to have financing lined up - They literally cannot make an offer that will be good for long periods, because the financier won't agree to that.

As for this...

> ...but again, it sounds like you misunderstand my proposal. In 30 seconds, someone would offer to buy, and then the current property owner would have the choice of either selling, or keeping their property but raising their property-tax assessment to either that amount, or the local average, whichever is lower.

Ok - follow along... now the next offer comes in 2 days later at the current value. The owner STILL has zero desire to sell. What now? Do they get to raise again?

Dude - this whole thing is ending up with more rules and regulations that the current market, which is exactly why pushing this kind of thing simply doesn't work.

In theory you're optimizing land efficiency, but you're fucking with other efficiencies ALL along the chain, and the net result is that people hate you.

----

Also - taking you at face value: "raising their property-tax assessment to either that amount, or the local average, whichever is lower."

This is fucking already how taxes work. At least in my area, every house is taxed at the local average (fulton county does average assessed value tax for land). So you're literally gaining nothing for all this additional complexity.

Re: High property taxes are good

#586

Post by raldi » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #585

raldi wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in transitional neighborhoods at several points in my life. > Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away. Why would the buyer go away? The state itself could maintain offers on any properties lowballing their property taxes. But that wouldn't be necessary, because at any time, there would always be ample interest in purchasing real estate for discount prices. You say this yourself:…

Ah - now I'm fairly convinced you haven't actually bought real estate. There is no such thing as a "standing offer" to buy a house. They're a contract with very clear start and end dates (most offers are good for between 72 hours and two weeks). This is because both parties have to agree at time of exchange on the value of the good, and the person making the offer usually needs to have financing lined up - They liter…

> Ah - now I'm fairly convinced you haven't actually bought real estate.

Also false. Maybe stop with the ad hominems?

> There is no such thing as a "standing offer" to buy a house.

There is in my proposal. Go back and reread it.

> This is fucking already how taxes work.

Not in California.

Re: High property taxes are good

#587

Post by vxNsr » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

igorkraw wrote: post #377

vxNsr wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were just told that your plan will cause people to become homeless and your response is “I’ll worry about them when they’re homeless.” You’re a perfect politician: make plans with no thoughts to unintended consequences even when you’re warned about them.

They won't become homeless. They will have to move after selling and incredibly expensive house. As opposed to those who are homeless but are not receiving any tax benefits for not having a home, they will have capital to rent for a long time and/or buy a new one in a cheap area

I’m sorry you’re so misinformed despite all the comments in this thread and on this post spelling it out for you. I don’t wanna go in circles, everything you’ve said in the above comment has already been debunked by others here.

Re: High property taxes are good

#588

Post by naasking » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #367

naasking wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't explicitly say anything no, but what does an LVT entail given how humans tend to value property? For instance, in NYC would it incentivize building a bunch of shoeboxes or actual livable space?

It would incentivize building a comparatively more expensive building that maximizes the developers profit. Whether that means shoeboxes or livable space depends on how much those things cost to build and how much people are willing to pay for them. If you just want single family homes with a big lawn you probably shouldn’t be living in Manhattan, which is the point of lvt.

> It would incentivize building a comparatively more expensive building that maximizes the developers profit. Whether that means shoeboxes or livable space depends on how much those things cost to build and how much people are willing to pay for them.

Yes, exactly. And my point is that a city shouldn't optimize along one direction like this, because families work in urban centres too. There should be a mix of housing for single people and families in the same urban areas, or you drive the families out of the city and encourage commuting and urban sprawl.

Re: High property taxes are good

#589

Post by naasking » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 9:16 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #531

naasking wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear on how land value taxes would incentivize the right kinds of units. For instance, would a land value tax incentivize the creation of tiny bachelor apartments, or larger apartments that families can use? We need incentives for both, and larger units are not very common these days.

The LVT is meant to stay neutral and let the market figure it out. That would probably mean more density compared to today (where lots of traditional houses take up massive amounts of space while paying artificially low tax), but if people are willing to pay a fair price for a big place then that's what will get built.

What "let the market figure it out" with LVT means is what I'm asking about. As I've explained elsewhere, if that means packing as many tiny units together in an urban core rather than a mix of bachelor pads and family-suitable living spaces, than that drives families out of urban centers and encourages urban sprawl, which creates terrible commutes and traffic and all subsequent problems.

Re: High property taxes are good

#590

Post by naasking » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 9:20 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #355

naasking wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the other poster said, the urban sprawl and ridiculous commutes that you see in every city are overwhelming evidence. The lack of family-suitable housing in urban centres is to blame, and the prioritization along single metrics, like obsessing over "density-only" because it generates more returns on investment, shares a lot of the blame. Density is not the only metric to consider.

No, they're not. Urban sprawl is the result of deficient density. People who want low density can commute. For any fixed population, decreasing density must, obviously, increase commute times and sprawl. This isn't complicated, though appeals to "return on investment" cloud the issue. Of course, part of the subtext of these discussions is that proponents of SFZ and owner-occupancy tend also to believe that their favo…

> No, they're not. Urban sprawl is the result of deficient density.

That's one cause. The other cause that you seem to refuse to understand is creating the wrong kind of density. An urban centre full of 1 bedroom apartments is still going to create urban sprawl because families just can't live there, thus driving them out of the city centre even though they still work there. I just don't get why you refuse to understand this very obvious point.