Are property taxes fair?

[Thunder]

Why do we pay property taxes?

I mean, I don't pay taxes on my car. Or my bike. Or my tv.

So why should folks pay taxes for the simple fact that they own land?

Me no get it.

 

[Beerina]

Michigan does have a "Single Business Tax", whose purpose is to apply an annual property tax to the equipment that business owns. Republicans have been trying to reduce or remove it for years to make Michigan slightly more business-friendly. Why should you pay the equivalent of a sales tax on your desks, every single year? Most other states have no such thing.



As for land property, there is the legitimate observation that it's wrong for you to have to buy your freedom, year after year, from the government, who will take away your property if you don't pay them a chunk of its value every year.

There are many ways for the government to take in money, and property taxes are one of the less palatable, philosophically.

 

[respect]

Why do we pay property taxes?

I mean, I don't pay taxes on my car. Or my bike. Or my tv.

So why should folks pay taxes for the simple fact that they own land?

Me no get it.

It makes it all much easier to swallow when they aren't presented as a lump sum.

Consider all of the haggling about the Clinton increases and Bush cuts which are both moderate movements in the federal income brackets. For all of the political commentary, neither of them did much.

Federal income taxes, FICA taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and so on.

 

[Thunder]

I am ok with most taxes, its just the property tax I don't like.

I mean, if I wish to buy 100 acres in Upstate New York, and just live completely isolated from the rest of society, with no electricity, gas, oil, etc etc...I should be able to do so without having to mail a damn check to the govt. every year.

 

[respect]

I am ok with most taxes, its just the property tax I don't like.

I mean, if I wish to buy 100 acres in Upstate New York, and just live completely isolated from the rest of society, with no electricity, gas, oil, etc etc...I should be able to do so without having to mail a damn check to the govt. every year.

That sounds a lot like someone saying that if they don't have kids they shouldn't have to support schools.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ad valorem property taxes suck, especially for the elderly and disabled. The only fair taxes ever invented were the income, nuisance and import taxes.

Your income is a measure of financial benefit derived fromm your use of the infrastructre, cultural or physical. By "nuisance taxes," I mean taxes on those activities which impose a burden on the infrastructure, such as fire and police and environmental protection activities, or on the public health, such as the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. These create a need for public expeditures.

Trade tariffs are a logical way of funding the regulatory agencies which must operate to oversee foreign trade and, where neccessary, to prevent unfair trade policies. Tariffs used to fund a major part of the federal government.

Schools, being a part of the cultural infrastructure, should be funded entirely from income and nuisance taxes, since the presence of a skilled and inventive work force is neccessary to a prosperous modern society and education helps people escape the ill-effects of what might be considered self-destructive behavior.

The fire levy for a home should be based on the likelihood that the fire department might have to respond there and how severe the fire might be, and perhaps how spread out the area covered might be.

A man who paints cars in his wood-frame home out in the boondocks is probably a bigger burden on the fire department than an old retired guy in a brick Tudor cottage a block from the station, regardless how much either home is worth.

 

[leftysergeant]

That sounds a lot like someone saying that if they don't have kids they shouldn't have to support schools.

And it would be a sorry arguement if that were what he meant.

Paying for public schools is not about educating your own larvae. It is about maintaining the quality of life for all citizens and ensuring the continued freedom and prosperity of the country.

 

[respect]

Ad valorem property taxes suck, especially for the elderly and disabled. The only fair taxes ever invented were the income, nuisance and import taxes.

Your income is a measure of financial benefit derived fromm your use of the infrastructre, cultural or physical. By "nuisance taxes," I mean taxes on those activities which impose a burden on the infrastructure, such as fire and police and environmental protection activities, or on the public health, such as the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. These create a need for public expeditures.

Trade tariffs are a logical way of funding the regulatory agencies which must operate to oversee foreign trade and, where neccessary, to prevent unfair trade policies. Tariffs used to fund a major part of the federal government.

Schools, being a part of the cultural infrastructure, should be funded entirely from income and nuisance taxes, since the presence of a skilled and inventive work force is neccessary to a prosperous modern society and education helps people escape the ill-effects of what might be considered self-destructive behavior.

The fire levy for a home should be based on the likelihood that the fire department might have to respond there and how severe the fire might be, and perhaps how spread out the area covered might be.

A man who paints cars in his wood-frame home out in the boondocks is probably a bigger burden on the fire department than an old retired guy in a brick Tudor cottage a block from the station, regardless how much either home is worth.

No intelligent person supports tariffs.

 

[leftysergeant]

No intelligent person supports tariffs.

You're quite wrong. Only people who think Friedman was right think they are a bad idea. The great bullk of humanity can see the reasoning behind it.

 

[respect]

You're quite wrong. Only people who think Friedman was right think they are a bad idea. The great bullk of humanity can see the reasoning behind it.

It is a demonstrable fact that tariffs result in a reduction in the standard of living in the country that imposes them. Friedman's work had nothing to do with this.

Again, because you are obviously slow on the uptake, most of Milton Friedman's work concerned monetary policy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Again, because you are obviously slow on the uptake, most of Milton Friedman's work concerned monetary policy.

Wasn't his position, like that of his punk kid, that tariffs were bad monetary policy?

 

[respect]

Wasn't his position, like that of his punk kid, that tariffs were bad monetary policy?

LOL, you don't know what monetary policy is. Like all intelligent people, he opposed tariffs, but tariffs are not monetary.

 

[leftysergeant]

LOL, you don't know what monetary policy is. Like all intelligent people, he opposed tariffs, but tariffs are not monetary.

So my point was valid, anyway.

 

[respect]

So my point was valid, anyway.

Besides that only idiots support tariffs, nope.

No Google, just off the cuff, do you have any idea what monetary policy is?

 

[leftysergeant]

Besides that only idiots support tariffs, nope.

No Google, just off the cuff, do you have any idea what monetary policy is?

Apparently, superstitious mumbo-jumbo, because that is all you have posted lately.

Supply-side ecconomics and tax cuts for the rich and "free" trade have failed. Don't you get it? The rich are getting richer by comparison to the poor with no end in sight, and the investor class are blaming the poor for the whole mess because, according to them, the poor "want too much."

What utter bull flops.

 

[rjh01]

Property taxes are one of the few taxes that are
1. Hard to avoid or evade. You can avoid taxes on many goods by buying overseas.
2. Do not adversely distort markets. For example a high income tax would be an incentive not to earn money.

 

[leftysergeant]

2. Do not adversely distort markets. For example a high income tax would be an incentive not to earn money.

Never stopped anybody before. The high-earners whine about it, but that may be because of the same moral defect that makes them want to hoarde everything they can lay hands on in the first place.

 

[Francesca R]

The government needs an amount of money. How much it should have and what it should do with it are off-topic debates. For how it should raise it, the relevant yardsticks are things like efficiency (how much it reduces pre-tax output/growth) and "fairness" which usually means progressivity.

Property tax (which is mostly a municipal government tax), wealth tax and inheritance tax are taxes on someone's stock of assets. Income, savings (capital gains) consumption and social insurance taxes are taxes on the positive flow of money someone has a claim on.

There is little ethical difference between these divisions in my view. Some people hate the idea of stock/wealth taxes because of the idea that in a static world, the tax would ultimately gobble it all and impoverish the title holder, whereas by taxing income flows, at least the taxpayer is still getting something left over. But there is no genuine moral distinction between those, and the scenario whereby a wealth/stock tax would drive someone to impoverishment is unrealistic.

Wealth/property/inheritance taxes tend to be progressive, because rich people make up by far most of the tax base (particularly if exemptions apply). They also have the least impact on growth (see OECD 2008, Abstract here). Perversely, many people on the left who describe themselves as progressive, are just as vehemently opposed to these taxes as people on the right who are against large redistribution by the state. That is daft. Progressives should absolutely favour such taxes, as should anyone who wants tax to be efficient (or least inefficient).

Per that OECD study (and most other studies that look at this), other reforms to the tax system should include broadening the base of consumption tax (and increasing the rate in the US), while simplifying income tax (probably not cutting it though, at least not in the US) and cutting corporation tax decisively. Combined in the right way, such a set of reforms can keep the degree of progressivity the same.

 

[Francesca R]

What ever you are talking about is not relevant to whether property taxes are fair. They are a tax that falls too heavilyl on those who are no longer benefitting from the ecconomy

Incorrect and contradicted by everything you have posted before about "paying your utility bills". Property owners who see the real value of their holdings rise are most certainly benefitting from the economy.

It is also bizzare that you are defending the rich with your view. Well not really, as many policies that benefit the middle class and the rich are there at the behest of (wrong-headed) left-of-centre views

 

[leftysergeant]

There is little ethical difference between these divisions in my view.

On this point, I have to take issue with you. It is unethical to place a serious tax burden on those who can ill afford to pay. It is even less ethical if it interferes with the tax payer's ability to survive. In my view, the simple value of a person's property is not a fair measure of how much that person should pay in taxes.

ALL levels of government should be funded primarily by taxes on the net income of persons or businesses.

Taxing a small business on the value of its physical plant is simply absurd, especially at the point at which the business is trying to expand, perhaps not yet making a profit. The danger of eating up the entire substance of a business before they have achieved an efficient level of production should be obvious. That is the one way in which a tax can actually kill jobs. If a business is in a building phase, it is clearly generating ecconomic activity. Some of the other participants in that activity may be earning a substantial income as the fledgling business gears up to go on to its next level. Those beneficiaries shuld be well able to pay an income tax. The new business should, of of course, bear the costs of providing such infrastructure as additional fire fighting equipment as its presence may require or access roads and water and sewerage sytems. There isno reason that anyone not invested in the busdiness should pick up the costs of its externalities.

Once a business has become profitable, then definitely the business should pay a corporate income tax, and it should be a progressive income tax based on how much financial benefit it derives from the infrastructure it utilizes or burdens.

The value of the land on which the business sits should have no impact on the amount of taxes it owes, unless and until that land is sold, at which time the profit from the sale should be taxed.

Inheritance taxes are fine, as far as I am concerned, because it performs two functions. For one thing, it taxes someone who is no longer present to suffer from the loss. Secondly, it slows the up-ward redistribution of wealth and power into the hands of those who were simply born into the right family. This is, after all, how kings come into being.

The existance of vast pools of wealth and power in the hands of only a very few persons in, almost always,eventually lethal to a civilization.

Some people hate the idea of stock/wealth taxes because of the idea that in a static world, the tax would ultimately gobble it all and impoverish the title holder, whereas by taxing income flows, at least the taxpayer is still getting something left over. But there is no genuine moral distinction between those, and the scenario whereby a wealth/stock tax would drive someone to impoverishment is unrealistic.

You are aprtly right here. But there is a moral distinction. Certainly, a progressive income tax taxes those who earn income at a higher rate rpoportionately more, but then, those high earners usually burden the infrastructure at a higher rate. A wealth tax, if assessed more than once, does pose the danger of consuming the tax payers entire substance, over time. Thus, I would say that , ethically, it should be assessed only once, on the death of the tax payer.

a consumption tax seems to me counter-productive and, again, falls most heavilly on those least able to pay it, in that the lowest wage earners find themselves having to spend nearly all of their income just to maintain a reasonable quality of life, whereas the rich need to spend afar smaller portion of their income to live large. They will have capital to invest elsewhere after the bills are paid. But the working people wouldl have little chance of ever accumulating the capital to invest or even retire decently.

When the middle class have money to spend, you can be assured that it will circullate within their communities, sppreading the prosperity around.
Corporations have been given far too many tax breaks here in the USA, and the money has not stayed in our ecconomy. It has created jobs off-shore, sometimes to the detriment of our working people. I personally would rather see the corporate rates increased, but with a tax credit for such investment as infrastructure and physical plant to create jobs here.

Wealth is great as long as it is not constantly migrating to the top of the food chain and then out of the country or used to gain political power to enact laws that help the wealthy at the hurt of ordinary folk.