> I’m sure your feelings will change as you get older.
Yes, this is the problem. Extreme self-interest and entitlement to massive windfalls.
And if house prices go down do they get a refund?
There is very little controversy over not taxing unrealized gains when it comes to income tax [1]. I'm not sure why doing the same thing for unrealized gains in property value is controversial.
It's not like most of the things property taxes pay for are proportional to the value of the property. The changes each year in costs to provide roads, schools, libraries, police and fire, and utilities to my house and my neighbor's houses generally has little to do with the changes in the market value of our homes. So why should the taxes that pay those things be tied to market value of the house?
More sensible would be to take the costs to provide the services the tax pays for, and divide it among the houses that receive the services, equally or taking into account usage (e.g., the amount for sewer might be proportional to the number of bedrooms). If we want it to be a progressive tax, apportion it according to the relative market values of the properties, but determine the total amount for the neighborhood solely by how much money the tax needs to raise to provide the services used by that neighborhood.
[1] There is controversy over tricks and schemes used to effectively realize them while escaping taxation.
Exactly! The extraordinary taxes on property are a result of unfair distribution of cost of services. A city needs to collect for a budget of $X... so they distribute the costs the best they can.
Don't assume. That person had to live somewhere, possibly at equally inflated prices. Now add in the the cost of two unnecessary moves.
> and if you sucked it up and paid the state? Maybe you had a sick family member that you were taking care of and the chaos of a move would have been too much to deal with. Sorry, chum. Bad luck of the draw.
The other program some counties around here do is property tax exclusion for low income seniors.
I don't think we need to remove it completely but some adjustments like applicable only to a primary residence and not investment or commercial properties would probably go a long way.
Oh great! I'll take one of those. Maybe two. Where do I sign up?
That's right. And why would it?
But also: your example is imaginary. When was the last time that house values dropped 10x or even 5x? It's counterproductive to make tax policy based on the extreme cases that have never happened.
Properly distributed, they should not be high.
Property taxes are not a slush fund for the government, nor should they be deferrable. They are intended to be running expenses.