Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would go with getting rid of property tax if there was another disincentive to discourage the wealthy from buying up all the land to use as investment income.
Taxes act as a roadblock from the investment class from buying up land and not using it other than to hold it and would not be beneficial to the nation as a whole.
Property tax because it is insidious in that it is charged merely by existence of property...
Income is sharing earnings and Sales also requires some action on the part of the spender.
I'm looking at a number of tax bills right now in my "Low" tax state and property tax is over 2% when adding all the special assessments...
How many times do I have to pay for street lighting and curbs when non-exist in my entire neighborhood for starters?
Among other things your property taxes pay for the salaries of police and fire. And the road crews. The traffic lights. The signs. Storm cleanup. Ambulances. These expenses need a stable source of revenue to pay for it.
Income taxes are volatile. Do you want a city and county income tax?
In many parts of the US, property taxes are almost completely a local issue. Local politicians tax you and spend it. If you don't like it - they live in your neighborhood, not the state capital hours away where you can't reach them.
Among other things your property taxes pay for the salaries of police and fire. And the road crews. The traffic lights. The signs. Storm cleanup. Ambulances. These expenses need a stable source of revenue to pay for it.
Income taxes are volatile. Do you want a city and county income tax?
In many parts of the US, property taxes are almost completely a local issue. Local politicians tax you and spend it. If you don't like it - they live in your neighborhood, not the state capital hours away where you can't reach them.
Worked in Germany and Austria and have experience with low property taxes and high sales/income tax and it works for me.
No one ever loses property because of property tax... the property tax is quite reasonable and pays directly for local roads, snow removal and local police... that is about it.
In other words it pays for direct services to the property. Coworkers invited me to thier homes and some have been in the family for over 500 years!
My property tax has 27 categories and I am paying for a new sports stadium I have never seen, youth after school services... several special school measures, Buses and Trains I never use as well as streetlights and sidewalks I never use because we don't have any... the kicker is my neighborhood was laid out in 1948 and I do pay for the streets and storm drainage to the tune of $950 a year on top of property tax.
Property taxes in Oakland are very high as is my county...
If I had it to do over again... I would never buy in a city... just moving a few streets over my property tax would drop 30%
The problem in Cali, as I understand it, is that the people who've owned their properties for a long time have really low taxes due to laws restricting increases whereas new home owners pick up the bill.
The problem in Cali, as I understand it, is that the people who've owned their properties for a long time have really low taxes due to laws restricting increases whereas new home owners pick up the bill.
Not exactly...
I bought my 1957 1725 square feet California home in 2004 and my neighbors that bought a home 3 houses up in 2012 that is 3600 square feet pay a third less in taxes and I bought 8 years before they did. The new neighbors bought at a time the market was way down and locked in that low price.
The thing to remember is taxes are based on the value at the time of transfer which is nearly always the selling price.
So yes... I person that bought a home in 1980 would have a lower tax basis than a person buying the same home in 2013 if the 2013 person paid more.
As to increases... the law is the same for all... no difference when a person bought... all taxable property is treated the same under Prop 13.
??? Renters are punished for NOT buying a home. Homeowners enjoy tax deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes and also enjoy caps on annual assessment and/or property tax increases as well as preferential property tax rates on their homes. Renters on the other hand don't get tax deductions and in many states their homes are taxed at higher rates than owner-occupied homes.
You say parents should shoulder more of the costs for the schools that their children attend. Republicans in Michigan stuck the costs for schools on the backs of renters and their landlords by creating a school tax on rental property four times the school tax on owner-occupied homes.
That must explain why rent here is so God-awful ridiculous compared to buying a house. I don't know what the point of that is, aside from further increasing the gap between rich and poor.
I planned on renting when I first got here, but after about 10 minutes of searching that option was off the table. For the amount I would pay in 4 years of rent I could buy a freaking house here outright.
Estate tax would be the last tax I would get rid of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
