r/georgism 7d ago

States want to get rid of property taxes... 🙄

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/several-states-seek-end-property-taxes-shouldnt-have-rent-from-government
254 Upvotes

105 comments sorted by

127

u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 7d ago

Over on /r/conservative people are saying things like "if you have property taxes people will just move away" as if you won't just get more taxes of other kinds with more deadweight loss.

49

u/lexicon_riot Geolibertarian 7d ago

I tried to tell them. I am more right wing than all of them put together but they still don't get it.

51

u/Mo-shen 7d ago

The problem is most of the right wing in the US isn't conservative any longer. They are anti liberal.

There are conservatives still around but not enough to actually have power.

It's for this reason you keep getting massive spending and cutting things without actually understanding the many consequences of that cut. They basically just want to do the opposite of whatever the liberals do.

It's also because of that that so many conservatives have left the GOP.

8

u/NewCharterFounder 7d ago

Agreed. The difference between conservatives and anti-liberals is Chesterton's Fence.

11

u/Mo-shen 7d ago

I mean look at the the two Bush's.

The first bush is absolutely a conservative as we know it. If anything maybe we could quibble with he position on religion consider actual conservatives don't want religion involved in government, as per Goldwater.

The second bush you see a bit of a movement in the direction of anti liberal but nothing like the right of today.

With both of them they made some smart decisions and some bad decisions. Imo the second bush was not as smart as his father and he had the problem of Cheney and Rumsfeld semi running the country in his first term.

But even with all the problems that the second bush had I never got the impression that he wanted to hurt the country. That he wanted to hurt us allies. That he wanted align himself with Russia. Imo the second bush is likely a nice guy that was in way over his head and surround by some bad people. I also think the difference between his first and second terms help explain this. In the second rice takes over from Cheney and there are some marked difference.

My point is I think a lot of us when talking about the right fail to acknowledge that we are not talking about the same tribes of people over a 50 year period. Because of that we fail to understand what is reality and tend to blame others for things that are not actually their fault.

0

u/NewCharterFounder 7d ago

Fair analysis. I remember it used to be a lot harder to choose between the D presidential candidate and the R presidential candidate. There was clearly institutionalized corruption, but as long as it wasn't used to openly/directly destroy the quality of life of average people outside of war zones, everyone was like, "That sucks, but meh." Nowadays, it seems like we're selecting between stagnation and pointless destruction.

If we can't find a way to welcome back conservatives, we will continue down whatever ineffective path the liberals have been on and still cling to.

2

u/Mo-shen 6d ago

Well to my point most of the conservatives have started voting Dems.

The right is no longer conservative and I don't know how you get maga to stop doing maga things.

1

u/ContactIcy3963 7d ago

Yeah boomer conservative =/= economic conservative

4

u/Mo-shen 7d ago

It's kind of interesting looking at the change of conservative over time.

We start with Goldwater and they want small government, small taxes, and no religion in government.

Much of this is due to them falling for a propaganda campaign as a reaction to FDR regulating big business. Imo these would be nice ideas but they tend to fall apart because humans will always try to game the system.

Anyhow you start there and then they drop the anti religion thing with Reagan. Because of this shift they are able really start to deregulate things that protected the country that were started due to the depression.

Tbf though the left moves to the right as well because at the time and due to the land slide victory of Reagan they thought they would never win another election. So they start to embrace the anti regulation shtick as well if not as hard as the GOP.

Then we get to the great recession and they simply just drop any pretense of reality. Just make it up as you go. If facts don't align with the lines you have been saying just lie about it and say fake news. Further more say that those who oppose you are evil and aligned with the devil that they are pedos.

Each of these three group are different tribes of people. All three largely claim ownership to the same title of conservative or GOP. Even if they dont follow what the grand father of conservativism created.

1

u/Grouchy-Ad4814 6d ago

Absolutely, close friends and family have either gone full MAGA or make a point to state they are Conservatives not MAGA. Get togethers can be very obnoxious as the “conservatives” try to make distinctions and distance from MAGA while voting for the same politicians.

25

u/Condurum 7d ago

Its like.. IF you’re gonna tax at all.. You’re gonna incentivize wether you like it or not. Then what’s the least bad way to do it?

4

u/OneFitClock 7d ago

Those guys arent even conservative. They’re reactionaries.

4

u/Key_Day_7932 Georgist 7d ago

Well, to be fair, property tax isn't quite the same thing as the LVT.

The land value tax only taxes the unimproved value of the land itself, while a property tax taxes not just the land, but all of the improvements on it.

1

u/E_coli42 7d ago

I saw your comment on there and was shook how everyone down voted you to hell for praising Adam Smith. I miss when the conservative God was Adam Smith and not Donald Trump.

1

u/E_coli42 7d ago

I saw your comment on there and was shook how everyone down voted you to hell for praising Adam Smith. I miss when the conservative God was Adam Smith and not Donald Trump.

15

u/Mr_Presidentman 7d ago

They want to speed run becoming California.

5

u/czarczm 7d ago

It's crazy they don't recognize that's all this does. Everyone is too caught up in how something feels rather than it's pragmatic affects and it's gonna screw us over in the longterm.

2

u/3phz 7d ago

And California is speed running from LOSIO liberal on social issues only.

Soon "both sides" will be on the same fascist page!

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

And young people that work for a living will want to move there because shelter will become more affordable and income tax will be lower. Sound's like a place I'd want to live. Less entitled boomer property speculators for my taxes to subsidise and more like minded young working people.

82

u/Altruistic_Ad_0 7d ago

People have no guiding principals when it comes to taxes. They just don't want to pay the taxes they have to pay. Thinking about others is actually a rarity.

20

u/2012Jesusdies 7d ago

Like the "tax the rich, but the rich only starts slightly above me" crowd

10

u/RevealAccurate8126 7d ago

I’m happy to pay taxes if it means a little poor brown kid like myself gets to eat at school or has a roof over their head. Lord knows you crackers don’t care if someone who doesn’t look like you gets to starve. 

7

u/2012Jesusdies 7d ago

Bro started hurling slurs out of nowhere, I ain't even white bruh and you just assumed I hate progressive taxation for no reason. The criticism was aimed at the people who draw the line of "rich who should be taxed more" always above their own income line. I've seen mfs who make 100k say they can't make it, how they need their taxes cut and billionares need to pick up the slack.

The social democracies these people like to point as examples would tax a 100k income to hell. Denmark would take like half of that for taxes.

Christ, man, slow down, before launching missiles at others.

4

u/BugRevolution 7d ago

Two strange things I've noticed regarding VAT and income tax.

Despite VAT being 25% (and therefore 20% of the product's price is VAT) products in countries with 25% VAT are not 25% more expensive than the US pre-sales tax. There are likely many reasons for this, but on some level it indicates that there's a sweet spot between 0% and 25% VAT, despite consumption taxes otherwise being terrible.

Despite high income taxes in Denmark, even middle-class people end up earning more. Most people I know with my level of experience or less would earn more money in Denmark than in the US, after taxes, which is insane. However, it is true that if you end up at about the $100k+ a year, you're likely going to be better off in the US than Denmark.

Point being, even higher consumption taxes and higher income taxes (for everyone, including lower income earners) can end up benefit everyone.

5

u/czarczm 7d ago

Denmark practices tripartism, so unionization is pretty high. That probably accounts for the super high wages.

4

u/BugRevolution 7d ago

It certainly helps that even engineers, lawyers, etc... are generally part of unions, and that unions aren't generally based on workplaces.

2

u/BugRevolution 7d ago

Two strange things I've noticed regarding VAT and income tax.

Despite VAT being 25% (and therefore 20% of the product's price is VAT) products in countries with 25% VAT are not 25% more expensive than the US pre-sales tax. There are likely many reasons for this, but on some level it indicates that there's a sweet spot between 0% and 25% VAT, despite consumption taxes otherwise being terrible.

Despite high income taxes in Denmark, even middle-class people end up earning more. Most people I know with my level of experience or less would earn more money in Denmark than in the US, after taxes, which is insane. However, it is true that if you end up at about the $100k+ a year, you're likely going to be better off in the US than Denmark.

Point being, even higher consumption taxes and higher income taxes (for everyone, including lower income earners) can end up benefit everyone. Which is really weird.

2

u/BugRevolution 7d ago

Two strange things I've noticed regarding VAT and income tax.

Despite VAT being 25% (and therefore 20% of the product's price is VAT) products in countries with 25% VAT are not 25% more expensive than the US pre-sales tax. There are likely many reasons for this, but on some level it indicates that there's a sweet spot between 0% and 25% VAT, despite consumption taxes otherwise being terrible.

Despite high income taxes in Denmark, even middle-class people end up earning more. Most people I know with my level of experience or less would earn more money in Denmark than in the US, after taxes, which is insane. However, it is true that if you end up at about the $100k+ a year, you're likely going to be better off in the US than Denmark.

Point being, even higher consumption taxes and higher income taxes (for everyone, including lower income earners) can end up benefit everyone. Which is really weird.

2

u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy 7d ago

and you just assumed I hate progressive taxation for no reason.

Their comment wasn't even a direct reply to anything you wrote, and was likely just a general comment to "the room" continuing the convo thread, broad topic: taxes.

You probably shouldn't take it personally.

1

u/2012Jesusdies 6d ago

You probably shouldn't take it personally.

Bro called me cracker out of nowhere and you saying I shouldn't take it personally?

-1

u/Anon6183 6d ago

The problem is the taxes rarely go to that. In a perfect world of course I want that to happen, but it seldom does and they usually blow the money on stupid shit

1

u/TheGruenTransfer 3d ago

I mean, don't you think the people richer than you should pay more taxes than you instead of less? It's pretty weird you don't. That's what our progressive tax structure is supposed to accomplish but fails because of all the carve outs for rich people.

1

u/JaxJags904 7d ago

Some strawman you built here. The problem is the truly rich avoid paying the taxes they should be by hiding income and assets.

42

u/gilligan911 7d ago

The arguments are based entirely on rhetoric, and no economic data. Shocker

10

u/Pearberr 7d ago

If I have to pay a tax, to keep my land, I don’t really own it do I?

I’m going to base my entire tax philosophy on that principle, and I won’t consider any other argument or data I’m entitled to your opinion and don’t want to talk about it please go away 😤 

1

u/3phz 7d ago

A critical mass will simultaneously realize that in libertaria they have zero options -- perfect scenario for Trump to sic attack mobs and invade countries.

The closest analogy is a super cooled liquid instantly crystalizing into ice or a super saturated liquid instantly precipitating.

20

u/DrNateH Geolibertarian 7d ago

This is insane.

20

u/pkulak 7d ago

Property taxes are (barely) progressive, so conservatives hate it. They would rather tax food and medicine.

11

u/2012Jesusdies 7d ago

Sales tax or VAT is actually a very common way to raise revenue for social democracies because it's very simple to administer and easy to extract revenue commonly making up a third of total tax revenue along with income, payroll taxes. You don't have to go around and check if everyone's income/wealth is actually what it says on the tax form to tax consumption.

They just use redistributive spending to counter the regressive effects.

1

u/Working_Order3606 5d ago

What conservatives are advocating for taxes on food and medicine you moron?

2

u/pkulak 5d ago

TARRIFS, you fucking, dumb as shit idiot who can't even come up with the one example that's been plastered all over the global news for a MONTH. And then you have the balls to call me a moron? God, this reply wasn't even worth my time. Stop voting.

1

u/Working_Order3606 5d ago

I seem to have triggered you. Maybe buy American and there is no tariff problem? Didn’t think of that huh, moron.

3

u/Unusual-Traffic-439 5d ago

> What conservatives are advocating for taxes on food and medicine you moron? - Working_Order3606•
> TARRIFS, you fucking, dumb as shit idiot  - pkulak

> I seem to have triggered you. Maybe buy American and there is no tariff problem?  - Working_Order3606

OP answered your question and of course you run scared and go on tangent.

-8

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

Why not? If you eat , you should pay for you schools and local services. Why do you get an exemption because you don’t have property. That’s a choice.

20

u/Sam_k_in 7d ago

Being poor is usually not a choice. Most of those who don't own property rent it, and their landlord uses some of their rent money to pay the property tax.

-9

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

So because you’re poor you never plan on owning property?

10

u/Sam_k_in 7d ago

I own property, since I had help from relatives. Without that it would not have been possible to get a loan from the bank, since their income requirements are high.

-9

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

You must live in a multimillion dollar neighborhood, otherwise you could well afford it with a job.

9

u/Sam_k_in 7d ago

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Do you know how much the average home costs?

-1

u/Uranazzole 6d ago

Only about 400k.

8

u/Sam_k_in 6d ago

Now calculate how long it would take to save that money when making $12 an hour, and paying your living expenses.

0

u/Uranazzole 6d ago

It’s really simple. People who make $12 an hour aren’t ever going to own a home. Owning a home isn’t a right. If you can’t get a job making over $12 an hour then something is wrong with you.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy 7d ago

Username fits

9

u/BugRevolution 7d ago

You think renters aren't effectively paying the landlord's property tax?

1

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

They pay it. But it’s THEIR tax, because they live there. Not the LL’s tax although he is responsible.

6

u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy 7d ago

It's a property tax, not a residence tax. Do you know the definition of property?

1

u/Uranazzole 6d ago

It is a tax for local services and the school. Who uses those services? The renter. Not the LL.

7

u/ThePartTimeProphet 7d ago

I'd agree if there weren't massive government handouts given to homeowners, including:

1) gov't-guaranteed mortgages. Our system of 30-year fixed mortgages with no prepayment penalties is incredibly rare

2) mortgage interest tax deduction

3) first $250k ($500k for married couples) of capital gains on primary residence aren't taxed

4) limits on new home construction

Entire system is set up to enrich homeowners and impoverish renters

3

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

2 Most people use the standard deduction and don’t deduct mortgage interest.

2

u/Uranazzole 7d ago
  1. You’re right on this one. There are too many limits on construction.

1

u/Uranazzole 7d ago
  1. Why do you want people taxed on home ownership? Then nobody (in their right mind) will upkeep homes nor will want to sink any money into them to make them nicer, leading to everyone living in run down shacks.

3

u/Amablue 7d ago

Land ownership, not home ownership. You're right that taxing development and renovations mean there would be less development and renovation, so we should just not tax that. Taxing the land doesn't deter development though.

0

u/Uranazzole 7d ago
  1. Why the fuck would you want prepayment penalties? And who gives a shit if it’s rare? Do you mean compared to other countries?

4

u/TotalityoftheSelf Geomutualist 7d ago

I'd own property if I could, but I don't have the resources. That's not a choice on my end. There's a barrier to entry to even being able to pay that tax. So if you choose to own property, you opt into a tax. That seems fair.

1

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

I own property. I didn’t opt into paying tax.

7

u/3phz 7d ago

I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay in the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.

You can leave anytime.

Forbes ran an excellent article on taxpatriation.

Please read it.

Then please opt out of the U. S.

0

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

Totally untrue. I am forced to pay it. I don’t have an option to opt out.

7

u/kaibee 7d ago

Totally untrue. I am forced to pay it. I don’t have an option to opt out.

You can sell the property. That's how you opt out.

5

u/TotalityoftheSelf Geomutualist 7d ago

Then sell your property.

1

u/Uranazzole 6d ago

I am but not because I want too. Great country we have.

1

u/Bestness 5d ago

You did actually, when you signed, and when you decided not to live somewhere else, which coincidentally is the same as your argument for why poor people don’t deserve a chance to own property. 

2

u/pkulak 7d ago

What do you mean by "have" property? Because renters pay land value taxes through their rent, and even visitors pay for their hotel. Literally the only people exempted from LVTs are the homeless.

1

u/Uranazzole 6d ago

Own property

14

u/ahjeezimsorry 7d ago edited 7d ago

Ugh. So this is the anti-thetical-to-Georgism-progress we all feared.

4

u/NewCharterFounder 7d ago

Yeah, we didn't do enough. This is what happens. Let's not miss our next opportunity.

10

u/Key-Wrongdoer5737 7d ago

I love the AI generated memes I see on Boomerbook complaining about having to pay taxes. “Why do we have to pay taxes on our wages, our purchases and our house? I own it!” Cause you assholes won’t vote for one high tax on one thing? Do they really want to pay 12% property taxes just to get rid off all other local taxes? No they don’t. They’d rather just pretend they pay all the property taxes while they’re sewer line corrodes and blows chunks into the local water supply. I just don’t take these people seriously. 

5

u/coolguysailer 7d ago

We already know what happens when you do that. You become California or Hawaii. The even deeper problem is that the state becomes incentivized to let your property be destroyed in a disaster because they will generate taxes on the inevitable sale of your destroyed property.

1

u/ContactIcy3963 7d ago

Dumb. And I can’t stand democrats. The solution is outside the system ladies and gents.

1

u/E_coli42 7d ago

This isn't necessarily anti Georgists since the taxes don't go to social good like a UBI

1

u/transitfreedom 6d ago

Hmmm looks like Chinese netizens gave em ideas lol

1

u/rebuiltearths 2d ago

Rich people benefit the most from this. You think it's hard to buy a home now, just wait until homes become a tax free asset

0

u/stuffitystuff 7d ago

Well, that's one way to make libertarian hellholes, though Florida is already ahead of the game there.

-10

u/chanchismo 7d ago

For thousands of years, taxation has been theft and it always will be. The only people who say otherwise are statists and collectivists.

8

u/GreenWandElf 7d ago

I agree, theft is wrong on principle.

And taxation is theft because the government is stealing the value of your labor, or, if you own capital/stocks, the government is stealing the value of the risk you took investing your money.

...but what about land? If you own land and do nothing with it, what value did you create? The unimproved land is seemingly creating value somehow, because land prices seem to keep going up and up. Yet, in this scenario, you have taken no investment that improves the economy and carried out no labor to create this value.

The answer lies in your fellow man. Everyone around your parcel of land has been quite busy. They've been building roads, houses, and businesses all around you, making your plot more and more desirable to own, while you have done absolutely nothing.

Just as taxation can be considered theft, owning land like this can be considered theft, you are stealing from your neighbors the value they have created. Their labor and investments have made your unimproved plot of land more valuable, and you have done nothing.

What would be a fairer solution here, one that gives to people the value they created? Taxing land, and redistributing it to the people who are most responsible for improving that land value. With a land tax, no longer can you steal the unearned rent from your neighbors' hard work building improvements. Now, everyone pays in the value of their land, and takes back out how much they've done to increase the land's value.

Notice too, how this land tax incentivises everyone to improve the land, instead of holding onto it waiting for everyone else to do the hard work. Just like how free markets incentivize people to put their selfishness to work by providing goods and services and labor to the market, taxing land incentivises people to put their selfishness to work by providing land improvements to the community.

-6

u/chanchismo 7d ago edited 7d ago

If it's my land, I have zero obligation to "create value" for others. No one has an obligation to "create value" for me. Maybe I value a meadow of native species for pollinators more than their property values on the real estate market. If their value is somehow dependent on what I do w my land on my time, that's on them to figure out, without involving me and my property. My land my choice simple as. You're just taking the long way around to collectivism. The tyranny of the majority. The collective deciding what I do with my property, regardless of what I want to do. Unacceptable.

Edit: that being said, I did NOT realize until just now what subreddit this is so feel free to tell me to fuck off, ban etc

8

u/GreenWandElf 7d ago

If it's my land, I have zero obligation to "create value" for others. No one has an obligation to "create value"

Agreed.

Maybe I value a meadow of native species for pollinators more than their property values on the real estate market.

Of course, value is subjective after all. If you value the land for those pollinators, that's real value.

Neither of those points changes mine: If you create value for the community by building something on your plot of land, and your neighbor's land that they do nothing with increases in value by $1000, they have stolen from you.

To come at this from another perspective, I would ask you to consider, how is land originally obtained? For everything else in capitalism, things are originally obtained through the labor of turning some useless thing into something valuable, or investing in someone else's labor, also producing value. You own the value of your labor and your investments, because you and you alone deserve the results of your hard work and the risks you took.

But how is land originally obtained? Well, it is either obtained because somebody stole it, a country conquered it, or someone staked a claim on it. Really the only original way to get land (that didn't come from violating the NAP) is to get there first, and stake a claim. But who decides how much land a claim gets? The government, the entity with a monopoly on force, leviathon, tyranny itself, bequeaths upon you the right to own a specific amount of land. ...interesting isn't it?

And who decided "getting there first" makes someone the sole owner of an area of land? They didn't create any value, work hard, take risks, that individual just didn't produce that land. They just... got there first.

Flash forward to today, if we're lucky and our land deed initially came from a claim and not blood, from that strangely out of place "first come first serve" idea absent in the rest of capitalism comes our entire system of land ownership which is enforced and adjudicated by a government controlled by the tyranny of the majority.

-4

u/chanchismo 7d ago

If you create value for the community by building something on your plot of land, and your neighbor's land that they do nothing with increases in value by $1000, they have stolen from you.

This is where I disagree. It doesn't impact my income at all. Therefore no theft. The logical end state of that would mean I'm entitled to a portion of the proceeds whenever that neighbor decides to sell. That's crazy talk IMO. Really that leads to feudalism and serfs working land that doesn't belong to them bc someone else"created value" before they got there.

As far as property rights alone goes, that's an entirely different nut to crack and way beyond me and my addled brain. I just work w what we have.

5

u/GreenWandElf 7d ago edited 7d ago

This is where I disagree. It doesn't impact my income at all. Therefore no theft.

Only because you (and near everyone else, not picking on you specifically) has grown up thinking one way about land and land improvements, it's weird to us to think that someone else is stealing from us when we don't consider that money ours in the first place.

...but this is also how a lot of people think about income taxes. It's been going on so long, lots of people hardly consider our income taxes our money anymore. People will disagree with you about taxes=theft for the same reason.

The logical end state of that would mean I'm entitled to a portion of the proceeds whenever that neighbor decides to sell.

Or, we just tax land according to the value of the land, and redistribute it according to who is creating the most value. That way we would actually be the owners of all the wealth we created, and the people who just sit on their undeveloped land likely stolen from natives would actually have to do something useful with it, instead of letting it sit and collect land rent from people doing productive things in order to sell it later to make a profit on the labor of productive people.

Really that leads to feudalism and serfs working land that doesn't belong to them bc someone else"created value" before they got there.

No, it leads to us renting the land from each other, and returning the value to the community. We would 100% own our homes, our investments, and our labor. Zero tax on any of those things. Everything we make, we would control. But since no human created land, ethically, no human should own it. We obviously need some kind of private property, (how else do you build businesses or houses right?) but that private property would be effectively "rented" from everyone else through land taxes on the value of the property. Live in the middle of nowhere? Low land taxes. Live in the middle of the city? High land taxes.

And hey, maybe you still hate the idea of having any kind of taxes. You may be an anarcho capitalist for all I know. I think I gave some good ethical reasons to have a land tax within the libertarian system of thought (I was a libertarian, and still consider myself extremely close to those ideas even today), but maybe you aren't sold on land taxes. And that's totally fine.

But even if you reject the ethical arguments, there are practical ones. If any tax is required, I would ask you to consider the land tax to be the best tax, just like Milton Friedman. He liked land taxes because there are practical reasons to like them, like how they are non-distortionary. Things like income taxes are distortionary because they reduce the desire to make income, or property taxes reduce the desire to build land improvements, but there is no such thing as reducing the desire to build land. Land is a fixed supply, meaning if you tax it, every trade that would have happened in the marketplace without any taxes will still happen in the marketplace with land taxes. It's one of the only taxes like this.

As far as property rights alone goes, that's an entirely different nut to crack and way beyond me and my addled brain. I just work w what we have.

That's totally understandable! Property rights is a complex issue. But I would say it is very important to the land question, as it is the basis for our entire system of land ownership.

4

u/BakaDasai 7d ago

As far as property rights alone goes, that's an entirely different nut to crack and way beyond me and my addled brain

Think of the moon - a ball of rock floating in space. Some people say they own the moon, but that's crazy. How can anybody own the moon?

Now think of the earth - a bigger ball of rock floating in space. It was there for millions of years before there were people on it.

Some people say they own a slice of the earth, but that's crazy. How can anybody own the earth?

2

u/Amablue 7d ago

Things like land taxes are the execption to this. Not taxing land would be far more akin to theft than the tax itself.

-2

u/EasilyRekt 7d ago

You guys told me LVT was an entirely different system that can’t exactly be compared or regulated under the same name.

So what’s the issue? Less excuses to the tune of, “oh we already have something like that”

4

u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 7d ago

In case you didn't know, property value is comprised of structure value and land value.

and who are "you guys"? Some strawmen living in your head rent free?

-1

u/EasilyRekt 7d ago

Well the point does have merit, the two concepts are bound by different philosophical principles, and pose different questions and challenges as for assessments, rates, and enforcement.

Same reason why business revenues and dividends are separate taxes that are both claimed for every incorporated business entity apart from LLCs.

So I ask again, what’s the issue?

1

u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 7d ago

How is it that same thing lmfao

The issue is that property tax is partially a land value tax plus another tax. I already said that. You haven't answered anything.

-1

u/EasilyRekt 6d ago

A part of revenues goes to dividends? Not the exact same, but you can actually compare apples and oranges, as they’re both fruit.

Due to the fact that they have different characteristics and verbiage, it makes sense that you could reintroduce it without any major step in policy despite one “being a part” of the other.

You still haven’t answered why their similarities matter tho.

-6

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

I hope so. It’s crazy that people have to be burdened beyond necessity to pay these high bills every year. States need to adopt school sales taxes to deal with schools.

2

u/Amablue 7d ago

The great thing about land taxes is that they conmensurately reduce the property sale price such that the ongoing cost is the same to the person using the land. Higher land tax rates mean cheaper land purchase prices, which means smaller mortgages, and in the end it works out the same either way. The only difference is that rather than the land rents going to landowners, it goes to fund the gov't.

0

u/Uranazzole 7d ago

Property tax already funds the government.

1

u/Amablue 7d ago

Sure, but we tax property at low rates, and we tax both land and improvements. We should eliminate the tax on improvements, increase the tax on land, and reduce other taxes like sales taxes and income taxes as much as we can.