County Council Approves 1 Mill Tax Rate Increase (Liberty, Oakland: to move, stadium)

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Lobick

That may be your view of fairness but it wouldn't be mine.

Those who disproportionately benefit from the rule of law and government instituted by the whole are asked to contribute more. Very simplistically, I do believe that if my $1 million dollar home is saved from burning to the ground by the City Fire Department as is my neighbor's 500k home, the fire department has provided a greaterr net benefit to me than my neighbor. My tax burden should reflect the disproportionate reliance that I'm placing on the government to protect my assests.

And likewise I'm sure most people can point to other services they neither directly or indirectly see any benefit from or use of, yet paying for said services is based purely on property ownership- seems an archaic model to me.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Copanut

It's called mass appraisal, and it's pretty accurate.

Being someone that has appraised homes for over two decades, I assure you, it can be very inaccurate as I have seen from so many that do appraisals. Pittsburgh in general can be difficult because one street can vary so greatly over a street right down the block. I can throw a stone to a home in my neighborhood that is worth $150K and over $1 million. That makes my area hard to appraise. When I fought the school district the last time, they of course used streets that were VERY desirable to try and prove their point. I was very prepared and used homes and streets that proved my point. It made for a confusing meeting, but the person hearing both sides knew my neighborhood and that proved to be in my favor. If it was someone from Ohio, it might have been a very different outcome. Guess time will tell, but I have all the records of my last court case and the school district is in agreement with me at this time.

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

That will never happen, but I'd at least settle for & prefer a land value tax to eliminate the above mentioned nonimprovement of one's property incentive & would make my neighborhood look alot nicer to boot.

Or maybe land value plus pure square footage of living space regardless of condition. If it was like that, it could make owners be more motivated to make homes look nicer? I have been trying to think of some way of getting landlords to make their rentals look nice, but have come up with nothing. Just having them fix a sidewalk or mow the lawn isn't doing all that much, when the paint is peeling and the porches are falling down.

It is an interesting puzzle with no easy answers.

[BrianTH]

Although I think if there is going to be a property tax it should be based on current appraisals (perhaps with a phase-in period to deal with certain specific issues), I'd generally agree we over-rely on property taxes in this area. I do think they make some sense for things like police and fire funding, for the reasons given above. When it comes to public works and such, at least some split between property taxes and a land-value tax starts making more sense. And I don't think property taxes make any sense at all as a way of funding things like public schools.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Or maybe land value plus pure square footage of living space regardless of condition.

Personally, I'd make it strict land value. You want to not only encourage property owners to improve the condition of their structures, but also to build on underutilized properties (vacant lots, surface parking lots, and so forth).

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Personally, I'd make it strict land value. You want to not only encourage property owners to improve the condition of their structures, but also to build on underutilized properties (vacant lots, surface parking lots, and so forth).

I wouldn't worry about parking lots, but vacant lots could be an issue if you use square footage. I will buy that. Like I said, it is an interesting study and not an easy puzzle to solve, or a better term would be compromise.

Good point there Brian. We don't always totally disagree, but usually.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I wouldn't worry about parking lots, but vacant lots could be an issue if you use square footage. I will buy that. Like I said, it is an interesting study and not an easy puzzle to solve, or a better term would be compromise.
Good point there Brian. We don't always totally disagree, but usually.

You don't always agree on things, but when you do, it involves vacant lots.
Stay bickering my friends.

http://ny-attractions.com/img/77/775/Dos_Equis_The_Most_Interesting_Man_In_The_World_Sp ring_2010_.jpg (broken link)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I wouldn't worry about parking lots

I would. They are one of the ways that a property owner can sit on land waiting for everyone else to invest in improving the area, and get just enough income to cover their carrying costs.

We don't always totally disagree, but usually.

Not that it matters, but I think we have agreed a lot more often than you have noticed. It is just that our discussions have typically gone on much longer when we disagree.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I would. They are one of the ways that a property owner can sit on land waiting for everyone else to invest in improving the area, and get just enough income to cover their carrying costs.

When you say, "parking lots", I think paving which costs money. If you are talking about vacant lots with grass or weeds, then we are in agreement. Paving is expensive and unless the parking would have value like close to a stadium, no one will pave. Maybe throw some gravel around at best.

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

You don't always agree on things, but when you do, it involves vacant lots.
Stay bickering my friends.

That picture is priceless. Love those commercials for some reason.