Simple equity demands that property taxes should at a minimum be equal to income taxes on the rental cost of equivalent property.
But there are niggles. Under most tax systems value you produce, even for own consumption, must be assessed and taxes paid on it. This is problematic if you take a crop for subsistence farming.
Income tax is not a good idea. You add value, why do we want to discourage you ?
Income tax is the best compromise I know of. If you want to participate in the economy-at-large then you pay it. If you don't want to, feel free to not participate. People who make more will pay more, but they will still make more.
Which is fine; lots of great stuff aren’t “the natural state of man.” But don’t bullshit about it, yeah?
You have people who have lived in their houses for a generation and may have even paid them off but when the land under their home - let alone their home itself - doubles in value every 8 years and the rate doubles in eight years, they have to sell to get out or lose their house anyway.
Then developers swoop in, tear down the houses, and build condos which are much more "economically efficient".
Capping property taxes is the same as rent control. It has the same challenges in its implementation, and the same downsides and costs.
If your house has gone from $200,000 to 700,000, having to pay $150k in deferred property taxes doesn’t seem over onerous.
> and build condos which are much more "economically efficient"
Why the scare quotes? They are.
I'm having trouble thinking of a realistic combination of numbers where the asset owner would exhaust the equity in their home under such a scenario, or is that "off limits" for some reason?
1) It is a lot more economically efficient, the situation has gone from 1 family living in a desirable area to multiple families. If we ignore the fact that one family had to move that is a big step up.
2) The alternate scenario, where the family just sits in their rapidly appreciating house, is grossly unfair. They are reaping huge benefits without doing anything. It is ok in principle but it is unfair on the other normal folk who can't move in that area and get priced out because there isn't enough housing. This concept is the justification of the land value tax and it goes to a very important principle - benefits should come from either hard work or by taking risks with saved money.
3) Since the economic and social benefits of tearing down single houses and building apartments are so huge (ie, lots of people get to live where they want instead of few people) it would be well worth looking for ways to keep the land value tax and mitigating the effect on the family that has to move rather than doubling down on the idea of people having a right to land. Taxes represent the government taking something people worked to earn. Taxing someone on land and they have to move is not that different from taxing their income and they have to give up some pleasure in life. That is what taxes do.
Further, it creates a legal and financial risk in the entire system where property becomes subject to the whims of whatever governing authority therefore discouraging investment and real ownership.
The Kelo decision was despicable, let's not encourage it.
If land values have truly doubled in 8 years it isn't like the family involved is out of pocket. They've made a small fortune. The idea they can make a small fortune and prevent land from being used is also morally gross. The only justification is that a large hurt is diffuse where the small hurt would be concentrated. That is a defensible philosophy but it is also one where eventually everyone is worse off. And it isn't like this is an erosion of property rights; they are being taxed on benefits that they are not responsible for creating. 1.5% land tax so people have to re-buy the land once a generation is as good an idea in tax law as any I've seen.
I agree that having to change a lifestyle because of taxation is pretty awful and the system should strive not to do it. But I've visited places like Hong Kong and seen the density of living there. We're talking an order of magnitude more people. The number of people who come out ahead from that sort of property development is so overwhelming we can't process it using intuition and positive stories about individuals.
This can be done by borrowing against the house from a financial institution or we can have the government place just place liens on the property if you can't pay.
If workers are always only paying the amount that they are able to pay, no more and no less, then that means that any increase in salary, will cause rents to increase.
BUT, it also means that the opposite is true. If salaries decrease, such as because if a tax, then rents will also equally decrease.
Or in other words, the tax is purely borne by the landlord.
So it makes perfect sense to tax the landlord in that case.
Either the taxes are passed through to the renter, or the price of rent is determined by a renter's ability to pay.
These are conflicting statements that both can't be true.
If renters are already paying the most that they can, and increases in wages only causes rents to go up, then it is not possible for them to pay that extra tax.
In economics, if a consumer always pays as much as they are able to, IE, it is a constant willingness to pay, then this is called perfectly elastic demand.
The situation of taxes being passed in to consumers, would only happen if consumer demand is perfectly inelastic.
It is literally the opposite situation. Demand can't both be perfectly elastic and also perfectly inelastic at the same time. They are opposites!
If there is property tax, only the government owns the property and rents it to citizens.
No. Taxes are spent on goods an services, the same as any property owner spends rent income.
The outcomes of expenditures on each part is different (sometimes a plate tax is actually applied to road maintenance). But the concept of a slush-fund and no (or few) legal guardrails for expenditures means your tax dollars probably land in a pet project somewhere, or are consumed in the financial friction of government bureaucracy.
Luckily most governments and societies today respect a sort of legal Platonism where the law as an ideal both constrains the government and the owners of property even though the government is tasked with implementing it. It might not be empiricist enough for some people but it seems to play nicely with human psychology’s inclination towards the mystical. And of all the cultural fantasies we might share, we could definitely do a lot worse than human rights and the rule of law.