property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free.
USA has about 2.5 billion acres. 1/4 acre per person in an average area tax free is reasonable.
USA has about 2.5 billion acres. 1/4 acre per person in an average area tax free is reasonable.
Electricity and gas and internet are private companies using an easement.
Police and fire can easily be funded by sales tax, just like the public transit. Alternatively, land owners can voluntarily pay yearly for police and fire, or opt-out just like people are not forced by government to buy homeowner insurance.
Maybe look into the lot lines and confirm if they extend through the 'road'. Then go to county clerk and recorder and find what easements were filed there. Lots of misunderstanding about this, even in local government.
Have those laws been tested? Published appellate cases specific to the law may be very interesting. An encumberance or taking requires compensation. Also, be careful to not use motor vehicle laws and words like 'drive', as you can do what you want on private property. My child was practicing use of movement via a personal conveyance when 11 years old, in what looks like a car on what looks like a road.
Incorporate a town and do what you want. After incorporating, set up contract to pay county to do maintenance until the town has time to bid it out.
Curious thing here is that with the limited ability of the town to meddle, town council election is occasionally cancelled because it is not contested. There is little to fight over, so not a lot of grift or power.
Am west of Mississippi river.
If there aren't cubs around, you yell, clap and raise your arms. It'll run in a heartbeat. If there are cubs around, you back away slowly- running will just make it chase you. If it follows, stop moving.
and then what!?
Realistically, it is a game of chicken. If you stop, you're signaling to the bear that you aren't intimidated. As long as it has an escape route, it'll back down.
Edit: not to mention that VAT and sales taxes are considered regressive taxes that disproportionately burden the less wealthy. I would much quicker remove VAT than property taxes.
For the same reason that I'm planning my retirement without social security. Politicians can't be trusted long term. They'll write laws to allow them to use funds that were previously protected.
For state an local governments this is mostly true but even there the federal government helps out.
What you want is for the wealthy to pay for the poor and old and those without much wealth or income.
You're still giving the "it's property" framing waaay more credit than it's due. Remember, granting someone exclusivity to a contested resource means preventing other people who would like to use the resource from using the resource. It's entirely reasonable for those people, represented in aggregate by the government, to ask for compensation in return, even if the government provided the landowner no additional services beyond the exclusivity.
The entire concept of "owning" land is just a hustle to argue against paying taxes on it.
The details need to be hashed out. I'm not convinced that 99 years is right, it's long enough to ignore and then pretend to be surprised when it comes up for renewal. Perhaps 35 years and no termination clauses, to make it easier to plan around? It would allow one house for having children and one house for retirement. The improvements mechanism would likewise need iteration.
I am interested to see how the various global experiments in these directions will pan out, though it looks like right now the market is betting that the 99 year leases will turn into perpetual ownership. That's unfortunate, because perpetual ownership is directly responsible for most of the largest perverse incentive problems in the real estate industry, not to mention ongoing gigantic deadweight loss.
I don't see how that's relevant, not all land is equally well suited for housing, especially among the elderly who are likely to need some sort of living assistance and regular access to healthcare.
property taxes are terrible for old people. you should be able to buy a reasonable amount of land tax free.
I think something like California's Prop 13 that puts a cap on property tax increases is a better idea -- but it should only apply to owner occupied primary residences, not second homes or investment properties.
Prop 13 is one of the worst ideas in taxation ever. It would be better just to let the aged and disabled freely defer property taxes beyond a certain, income-based level (and maybe also to let other people do the same with certain limits on total deferred amount relative to assessed value for time-unlimited deferrals, and total time for value-unlimited deferrals.)
Prop 13 is just a handout, it could disappear overnight and grandma wouldn't have to pay a dime.
Roughly, yes (it's not exactly what I am describing, but pretty close); I’m saying if you are looking for a model to stop that problem elsewhere that has neither, copying Prop 13 (or even just the assessment increase limit, even if applied only to owner occupied primary residence) isn't the thing you should reach for.
Of course nowadays it's easier to hire behind grandma than it is to defund school buses.
Most old do not live in assisted care. ANd healthcare is independent of land ownership.
CA is extremely screwed up on how it taxes. I used to live in Cupertino where some people were paying taxes on 2 million dollar lots valued at 100k.
Most old do not live in assisted care. And healthcare is independent of land ownership.
I didn't say "assisted care" my father lived almost his entire life on his own, but still had assistance from his children and occasionally a home healthcare worker - this is a lot harder to do if his allocated tax-free plot of land is 100 miles from family or healthcare services. Healthcare is independent of land ownership, but isn't independent of location - after one medication change, he had to go back to the doctor daily for monitoring for a couple weeks, then weekly after that for 6 months. How would he do that it it was a 4 hour round trip to the nearest healthcare facility?
The more reasonable approach to this would be discounts for the primary residence, and possibly discounts for populated units, depending on if you are targeting home owners / overall population and housing cost.
Quarter acre per family might make sense across the US as a whole with large swathes of empty land across the middle, but it makes no sense if you look at the average individual given the percentage of the country living in urban areas.
A fixed mille-rate results in taxes going up as value goes up. This might be difficult to plan for and manage. However, many cities will simply put a lien on the property and collect when the property is sold/transferred/person dies.
However, this isn't necessarily how things need to be done. In New Zealand, the mille-rate is set to clear the budget. That way, the mille-rate changes with the city's budget, not valuations.
If the city wants to do more, they put it into the budget and say "do you want to pay for it?". Then the mille-rate is changed and everyone's taxes change.
If your house changes value, your taxes don't change! Unless your neighborhood changes its relative valuation, then it might go up or down.
They mostly cater to the existing residents that own homes and partake in municipal voting.
They'll stop creating new housing developments and put massive permitting fees on proposals for new construction.
The entire goal should be to encourage residents to partake in municipal voting. That's everyone's responsibility as citizens.
In fact, my current area (Cobb county, GA) nimbys keep trying to block assisted living residences. The argument is that old people move in, don’t pay into local funds, but the burden is hoisted on other younger families instead.
The lack of property/land value taxes hurts anyone who isn't retired. I care much more about poor young people who get priced out of moving to a better job in the city than an old person who is "forced" to sell their multi-million dollar single family home. If an old person insists on living in a place where they can't afford property taxes, there are plenty of people willing to pay their property taxes until they pass in exchange for a stake in equity of their home.
When LVT is used to fund UBI, that ability is automatic: the "break even" point (where your taxes minus dividends are zero) would represent you owning a "reasonable amount of land" (as measured by value). If you own more than that, you pay for it; if you own less than that, you're paid for it.
A quarter acre in Palo Alto, though?
Examples are California Tax Postponement Program and New Jersey senior freeze.