Protesting your property taxes

[buckethead]

Now you are getting somewhere. This is the entire issue of publicly funded education. Any system of taxation will be unfair to those who do not utilize publicly funded education systems. It (unfairness to those who don't utilize)) is certainly present in the property tax system. It is, however a separate issue. Property taxation is a means of taxation. What those taxes are used for is another matter.

You are sounding more libertarian by the post!

[Charles Hunter]

Society doesn't benefit by having an educated populace?

(as we careen wildly away from the original point of the thread ... )

[buckethead]

Because sales tax taxes what you buy and consume. Once you have bought it........ wait for it....... It is yours.

Property taxation , on the other hand.... taxes what you own, meaning you don't really own it.

[Charles Hunter]

I think buckethead's point is, when you buy that bottle of coke, or HDTV, or water pipe, you only pay taxes at the time of purchase.  You don't pay a tax on that coke, or HDTV, or water pipe, every year you own it, as you do with property.

[buckethead]

@ SD:  Except for one simple difference. Sales taxes are voluntary. (To a degree, I realize.) One can easily forgo the coke LL cola. I could get by without that sackful of Krystal burgers, if money was tight that week.

People cannot avoid paying property taxes without being homeless. (Barring sponging off mom and dad)

Renters do pay property taxes, for the record. The landlord collects it.

[buckethead]

I think buckethead's point is, when you buy that bottle of coke, or HDTV, or water pipe, you only pay taxes at the time of purchase.  You don't pay a tax on that coke, or HDTV, or water pipe, every year you own it, as you do with property.

Excellent point. Wealth (high end goods) is not taxed as is real estate. That could be changed.

[buckethead]

As it stands now, yes. I believe it should be changed due to the fact that many people who would otherwise be able to maintain their property, lose it due to inability, or procrastination of paying the property tax.

Landowners are not the only persons "paying" property taxes. It is homeowners, renters and consumers who pay property taxes.

[buckethead]

It is voluntary!

It just isn't "purchasing" when you get an additional, perpetual, ever increasing (short term market fluctuations notwithstanding) lease payment to go along with the "purchase".

[buckethead]

It is voluntary!

It just isn't "purchasing" when you get an additional, perpetual, ever increasing (short term market fluctuations notwithstanding) lease payment to go along with the "purchase".

So you think that the land should be simply self sustaining and not free from any financial obligations whatsoever, despite the value it obtains from being within the purview of municipal services? All citizens are responsible for payment of municipal services under my ingenious plan.

See I think this would be immoral.

The renter of the property gets no resale value whatsoever from the money that he pays to the landlord, you know.  yet he would be responsible for paying your retail tax. The renter benefits from the use of the property without the long term commitment of paying the full value of the property. The renter is already payin the property tax. If the landlord continues to charge for a tax that no longer exists, he will lose a tenant.

Yet at the end of paying all of those retail taxes, the landlord would be able to sell the property and get the full value of the land plus its value derived from the improvements to the local infrastructure.  Why would that be fair? All citizens benefit from infrastructure improvements. all citizens will pay sales tax. When the real estate is sold for a profit... bingo!... taxed.

And you do have that choice in the many completely unincorporated areas of vermont and oregon. Which choice? payment of sales tax? Are those unincorporated areas subjected to property taxes? If so, I would assume it would be at the state level. In that case, so would the sales tax be.

[buckethead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Milton Friedman noted that "The property tax is one of the least bad taxes, because it’s levied on something that cannot be produced â€" that part that is levied on the land". A 2008 analysis from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was consistent with Friedman's opinion; examining the effect of various types of taxes on economic growth, it found that property taxes "seemed to be the most growth-friendly, followed by consumption taxes and then by personal income taxes."

Stephen Dare giving me Milton Friedman !!!

[buckethead]

Well done!

[buckethead]

Property tax is a local tax, buckethead.  There is no federal property tax. I don't believe I made that claim.

The property owner does get the benefit of the land improvements in a very direct way that a renter does not get.  The property owner assumes risks the renter does not assume. But this is a trivial matter. The renter ALREADY PAYS THE PROPERTY TAXES!

Both the property owner and the renter can enjoy the services brought about by infrastructure improvements, but only the property owner gets the added benefit that comes from increased real estate values. As well as losses in value due to undesired infrastructure improvements such as a waste water treatment facility or an airport AND the landowner assumes the risk of property values ....falling (That could never happen). If the property is commercial, the tenant is as well.

Why would this be 'moral' in the case of the landlord who makes the renter pay the taxes every time he pays rent to use the property, therefore paying twice----once to the landlord, and once to the city---but then gets to reap all the benefits of the taxpayer money when he sells the property itself? You lost me here. Are you saying the renter would have to continue paying the landlord for the cost of property taxes once repealed?

It doesnt sound very moral to me.  It sounds like using tax monies as way to jack up real estate value without having to contribute to it directly. (all real estate transactions would be taxed)

And there are all kinds of places in America that do not have property taxes.  The unincorporated areas of the Dakotas for example, many parts of the Virginias and Vermont. At least somebody gets it.

[buckethead]

It is voluntary!

It just isn't "purchasing" when you get an additional, perpetual, ever increasing (short term market fluctuations notwithstanding) lease payment to go along with the "purchase".

So you think that the land should be simply self sustaining and free from any financial obligations whatsoever, despite the value it obtains from being within the purview of municipal services?

See I think this would be immoral.

The renter of the property gets no resale value whatsoever from the money that he pays to the landlord, you know.  yet he would be responsible for paying your retail tax.

Yet at the end of paying all of those retail taxes, the landlord would be able to sell the property and get the full value of the land plus its value derived from the improvements to the local infrastructure.  Why would that be fair?

And you do have that choice in the many completely unincorporated areas of vermont and oregon.

Looks like I missed one, but I'm getting sleepy. Good surf tomorrow...

[uptowngirl]

From retailers. That would be the majority of the taxation.

There would need to be a system put in place to tax real estate transactions. Any retailer needs to have an occupational license and a tax ID.  Make it the same for real estate agents. For individuals selling outside of agents/MLS it could be required to be collected by a title company.

Let's be honest here. I am an under-educated simpleton. So far, I have addressed each issue you have brought up. If I can figure these issues out, how much better could municipalities get a system in place? Most of the mechanisms are already in place.

Why would retailers fairly held responsible for domestic abuse or the education of other people's children? or if someone's house were burning down?

Retailers are not held responsible. Consumers are. Retailers would simply provide the vehicle for collection. A small percentage could be added to compensate retailers for DOING WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY COMPELLED TO DO.

But your argument is based on the morality of land taxation.

How is it moral to tax the retail sales of people without children and private security for these services?

My arguement is everyone has a vested interest in public services, whether that be fire, police, school, library etc (I know you get this Stephen :-) )

So everyone should share in this cost- sales tax is how to make that happen. Most retailers have computers nowadays so it is an extra line item. (Ever been to McDonalds or Burger King when the computers are down? These peeps can't count your change!) In Louisianna this occurs, here is the breakdown for Slidell (north shore):
The City of Slidell sales tax is 8.75%, which is comprised of:

2.00% City of Slidell
2.00% St. Tammany Parish School Board
0.25% Law Enforcement District (St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Office)
0.25% St. Tammany Parish Jail
0.25% St. Tammany Parish Courthouse
4.00% State of Louisiana
---------
8.75% Total

New Orleans is 9% because the charge the highest city tax allowed by law (5%).

Property taxes are also collected in LA, but they are much lower- which is more acceptable as the cost for city/parish services are spread across all that USE those services and not just those who pay property taxes.

Edit: Just note that is city and Parish (county for non LA peeps) Taxes...people with more money spend more money, you can't create a tax shelter on sales tax. I particulary like the fact that the police, jail, and courthouse funding are all included in the sales tax !

[buckethead]

You mentioned that there would be a consumption tax.  Rental payments would be reasonably expected to be taxed.

In this case, all taxes would be paid solely by the renter. They already are paid by the renter, and would continue to be paid by the renter, except in cases where there is no renter.

Who is also paying for whatever mortgages there are against the property. See above

On inspection it seems clear that cancelling property taxes and converting to consumption taxes would leave the property owners with no clear connection to the well being or administration of the city that they live in, and it seems like tne of the worst possible ideas, Buckethead. Now this point really got me thinking. It is thoughtful and well written. It does not however, take into account that a real estate transaction tax would be implimented. Let's suppose in Duval County the new tax system would now tax goods at 10%. A $1m property would carry a tax burden of $100,000.00. Hardly a disinterested investment in a municipality. In fact, the government would get approximately 10 years worth of property taxes up front. As it is currently structured, an out of town landlord benefits from the municipal improvements made while the renter bears the burden of taxation. The out of towner is off the hook. Scott free.

There is a well established example of this system, and the contrasting---and as it proved, superior--alternative of property taxes for the landed nobility. Another good point, although I am not sure the reason for the fall of aristocracy in France was due soley to the system of taxation. I agree this played a role however and should be considered.

The French, whose entire society was paid for by taxes imposed on the working middle class, which ended in the ennui of the aristocracy---which was tax free.

And the English, who were subject to the property tax, and whose monarchy survived to the present day. As decoration, but yes. They survived, which is more than can be said of the hottest woman that ever lived; Marie Antionette.

Why am I not in the water yet?!?!?