In a property tax state, my taxes are entirely dependent on the property market, regardless of how much or little I make. When there is a budget shortfall the bureaucrats juice the millage rate. Property re-assessments go up, rarely down. And if you owned property for a long while you pay less in taxes than someone younger and on a lower salary.
What a complete and utter lie. What hole are you pulling these "facts" from?
> And if you owned property for a long while you pay less in taxes than someone younger and on a lower salary.
You mean, someone retired and unemployed vs. someone at the peak of their career?
Man...you are projecting so hard, it's palpable.
Don't accuse others of lying when even a modicum of good faith points to them simply holding opinions different from yours.
In this case, they are also right. At least under the assumption of taxation linear to property value.
Thats because richer people tend to spend less (as a %) of their income on housing. I hope that's intuitively obvious: making minimum wage, you're likely to spend 40% or 50% of income on rent. At the other extreme, the Bill Gates of the world spend about a Pentium III rounding error of their income.
It's the same with every other consumption taxes. Often, the first $100,000 in value or so are free. That helps a little, but only for the balance between the poor and the middle class. It's almost impossible to adequately tax the super-rich within this framework.
Drive around on some Houston roads sometime... One time my bumper got popped off by a pothole.