Are property taxes fair?

[bruto]

Yes, there will always be exceptions, and while I can't speak for every municipality, in North Vancouver, the city is totally aware of the old lady who moved into row housing, and woke up one morning in a re-gentrified highrise neighbourhood. Specifically, Lower Lonsdale used to be fixedincomeville, but now it's yuppieville.

So firstly, people who actually live in their dwelling get a big chunk knocked off the top. Secondly, if they're a senior over 65 or disabled, they get more reduced.

I pay $900/yr property tax for a condo I rent out and don't occupy. The immediate neighbour (who is a friend - has a slightly nicer unit, but same square footage) pays $45/yr. Yes, if she lived in a really shabby place a few blocks over she'd pay $42/yr, but I wouldn't call that 'getting screwed' since it still covers her police, fire, roads, and garbage.

I learned that through Family Services, she received a provincial grant to pay for this as she can demonstrate hardship. They also paid for her share of annual duct cleaning.


ETA: sorry, I was rambling and didn't clarify my point, which was that there are ways to nudge property tax into a more progressive structure and avoid our most vulnerable members of society falling through the cracks

I agree that there are ways to make property taxation more progressive, but whether and how they are implemented certainly can vary. Most places I've lived have had some abatement for the poor and the elderly, but not everyone can qualify for that treatment. I'm not sure I would know how to make a better system, and maybe at its best it's the best we can do, but nevertheless, whatever measures are taken are patches to make an inherently regressive tax less so.

By Vermont standards, by the way, your property taxes are ridiculously low. I would never complain if I could live anywhere with an operative roof over my head for $45 a year in taxes, or $900 for that matter. In my town, the combined property and school tax rates would cost you about $45 a year for a home worth about $2500 total (we are assessed at a conservative estimate of true market value, so such a place, if such a place actually existed, might sell for $3500 on a really good day). Needless to say no such homestead exists here.

 

[WildCat]

NONE ARE valued for TAX AT A RATE NEAR their loans

Neither is residential property.

Assessed value for property tax purposes has little to nothing to do with actual market value. It really doesn't matter what the market value is, because the bodies doing the taxing need x-amount of money regardless.

Assessed values are only useful when compared to each other, not for estimating market value.

 

[blutoski]

I agree that there are ways to make property taxation more progressive, but whether and how they are implemented certainly can vary. Most places I've lived have had some abatement for the poor and the elderly, but not everyone can qualify for that treatment. I'm not sure I would know how to make a better system, and maybe at its best it's the best we can do, but nevertheless, whatever measures are taken are patches to make an inherently regressive tax less so.

I disagree that it's inherently regressive in the sense that richer people buy more expensive houses. 8,000 square foot mansions on waterfront acreage pay a higher tax than a 500 square foot basement condo. Sounds right. It's slightly unfair to people who have bought a house that finds itself in a neighbourhood that increases in value faster than other neighbourhoods, but they're an exception, and we're not talking about a huge dollar value.

Just looking at what happened in North Vancouver when the condo's neighbourhood gentrified and it at least doubled in resale value, we're talking about a 1-2% change compared to my other condo in an area that has only seen about a 30% increase in resale value in the same timeframe. Both went up by at least some inflation rate, but not a huge difference I can account to the difference in market activity.

By Vermont standards, by the way, your property taxes are ridiculously low.

I think a big source of difference is that in Canada, education costs come from provincial income tax, rather than property taxes.

It could also be that the formula is more progressive here. The value of structure is an important part of the formula. Somebody living in a tumbledown cottage pays less than somebody living in a mansion, even on an identical piece of land.

I would never complain if I could live anywhere with an operative roof over my head for $45 a year in taxes, or $900 for that matter. In my town, the combined property and school tax rates would cost you about $45 a year for a home worth about $2500 total (we are assessed at a conservative estimate of true market value, so such a place, if such a place actually existed, might sell for $3500 on a really good day). Needless to say no such homestead exists here.

The rate I quoted was for a condo with relatively small square footage in the building, so if there are 60 units paying $900-$1200/ea/yr this probably sounds more like what you'd estimate. The footprint is about 200' x 100', one garbage bin, fire alarm hardwired to the dispatch.

 

[bruto]

I disagree that it's inherently regressive in the sense that richer people buy more expensive houses. 8,000 square foot mansions on waterfront acreage pay a higher tax than a 500 square foot basement condo. Sounds right. It's slightly unfair to people who have bought a house that finds itself in a neighbourhood that increases in value faster than other neighbourhoods, but they're an exception, and we're not talking about a huge dollar value.

Just looking at what happened in North Vancouver when the condo's neighbourhood gentrified and it at least doubled in resale value, we're talking about a 1-2% change compared to my other condo in an area that has only seen about a 30% increase in resale value in the same timeframe. Both went up by at least some inflation rate, but not a huge difference I can account to the difference in market activity.







I think a big source of difference is that in Canada, education costs come from provincial income tax, rather than property taxes.

It could also be that the formula is more progressive here. The value of structure is an important part of the formula. Somebody living in a tumbledown cottage pays less than somebody living in a mansion, even on an identical piece of land.







The rate I quoted was for a condo with relatively small square footage in the building, so if there are 60 units paying $900-$1200/ea/yr this probably sounds more like what you'd estimate. The footprint is about 200' x 100', one garbage bin, fire alarm hardwired to the dispatch.

Well, I'm about out of energy on this subject, but still believe that property taxes are the only taxes we regularly pay that are based on something other than how much we have spent or how much we earn, but rather on someone else's valuation of what we own.

I think a provincial income tax is probably a better way to fund education, for various reasons. First, of course, it's not a property tax, and second, it does not burden poorer towns or neighborhoods with higher tax rates for equivalent educational facilities which rich towns can fund with ease. That's been a real problem here in Vermont, which was partially addressed by a rather complicated state mandated cap on property taxation and a plan for redistribution of some tax revenues by the state. It's a thorny issue, in which there's been a lot of confusion, rancor and only partial satisfaction for anyone.

The flip side of the education tax issue, however, is also a powerful one: towns are loath to give up their local management of schools, decisions on budgets, bargaining with teachers, etc., and a school system funded by the state would most likely end local autonomy.

So far, it seems, nobody has come up with a good answer for this that satisfies everyone. The best solutions seem to be to make everyone a little bit unhappy and try to avoid making anyone utterly miserable.

 

[blutoski]

The flip side of the education tax issue, however, is also a powerful one: towns are loath to give up their local management of schools, decisions on budgets, bargaining with teachers, etc., and a school system funded by the state would most likely end local autonomy.

There's been a compromise in that the province transfers funds to local school 'districts' in proportion to the district's enrolled students. Districts are somewhat regional and often span more than one city.

For example, North Vancouver School District #44 spans both City of North Vancouver and District of North Vancouver. Two mayors; one school board.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin School District #27 is a better example: dozens of towns with 0-100 students, but one School District, which locates schools to balance facility costs with student commuting.

The school boards are still entirely elected, but not at the granularity of a municipality. Maybe BC is different because so many municipalities here have only a handful of studends. (Spuzzum is a town with a population = 1 citizen: the mayor)

The nice thing about this is that a region like 108 Mile which has maybe a 70% unemployment rate and low literacy &c can nevertheless send their kids to school that receives the same funding as the wealthiest community. The idea being that at least this source of perpetuation of poverty can be mitigated, with a mind toward encouraging social mobility.

 

[ksbluesfan]

Louisiana appears to have the lowest average property taxes. Lafourche Parish is the lowest in the country.

Source

 

[Francesca R]

Well, I'm about out of energy on this subject, but still believe that property taxes are the only taxes we regularly pay that are based on something other than how much we have spent or how much we earn, but rather on someone else's valuation of what we own.

Excise tax, inheritance tax, transfer tax, wealth tax and various environmental taxes are others. Not everywhere has all of them, but most countries have some of them.

Moreover, property (and other real assets) generally provides a stream of future cash flows (or service benefits in lieu of cash which are consumed by the title holder instead), so there may be practically not much difference between using the value or the income as the tax base.

I think a provincial income tax is probably a better way to fund education, for various reasons. First, of course, it's not a property tax, and second, it does not burden poorer towns or neighborhoods with higher tax rates for equivalent educational facilities which rich towns can fund with ease.

Wouldn't a poorer district have lower average incomes and therefore, again, a smaller tax base?

 

[Cayvmann]

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.

I pay taxes on my car, and if I owned recreational vehicles, I would have to pay on them too. I expect soon enough to have to pay property taxes on bikes and tvs too, since NC and the local governments are having to make up for lack of revenue.

I don't think the amounts we have to pay are fair, or paying for non-property( real estate ), as a property tax, but I have no vote in such things...

Paying on property, as in real-estate, funds the governments support of your property rights, so to speak. Deeds, land disputes, etc. Paying something is fair, but how much? And who gets to decide my land is worth so much more than I could sell it for?

 

[Cayvmann]

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.

If it is demonstrable, then demonstrate it. You have a rather ironic forum name for someone going around calling people idiots.

 

[bruto]

Excise tax, inheritance tax, transfer tax, wealth tax and various environmental taxes are others. Not everywhere has all of them, but most countries have some of them.

Moreover, property (and other real assets) generally provides a stream of future cash flows (or service benefits in lieu of cash which are consumed by the title holder instead), so there may be practically not much difference between using the value or the income as the tax base.

Wouldn't a poorer district have lower average incomes and therefore, again, a smaller tax base?

I would expect a state or provincial tax to be collected and distributed over a wider area, so that district variations would be evened out. If it's just income based with the same "granularity" (I like blutoski's term) as current property tax districts, then I agree, there's not much progress.

I'm not sure I agree with all your above examples of taxes. Inheritance tax is based, of course, on current value of property as well as actual cash, but it's the value at one time, paid once. Once you inherit what's left, you have it. You don't have to pay an annual tax to maintain your ownership of it. Excise taxes, likewise, occur once when you buy or sell something.

 

[respect]

I support some tariffs.

In particular, as a retaliatory measure for when the target exporter is engaged in dumping or subsidies, or other unfair trade strategies.

I agree that tariffs might be unnecessary in a 'fair trade' environment, but in the real world, nations have strategies and 25-year plans to obliterate foreign industries forever.

To fail to retaliate would be a victory of idealism over pragmatism and handing future wealth to the instigator nation.

It would much preferred that accusations of dumping be dealt with diplomatically rather than tit for tat retaliation which can quickly spin out of control.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm not sure I agree with all your above examples of taxes. Inheritance tax is based, of course, on current value of property as well as actual cash, but it's the value at one time, paid once.

People who die twice pay it over again.

Excise taxes, likewise, occur once when you buy or sell something.

Not all of them. A common exception is vehicle excise duty (which is partly an environmental/repricing tax but is levied on the "quantity" of vehicle; specifically, its emissions)

 

[respect]

If it is demonstrable, then demonstrate it. You have a rather ironic forum name for someone going around calling people idiots.

I doubt that explaining it to him again will yield different results. This shows the basics of what a tariff does. There are plenty of resources that will give a complete explanation.

The handle comes from a song that happened to be on the radio years ago when I was signing up for a different forum (Pantera's Walk, not Aretha Franklin).

 

[Francesca R]

It would much preferred that accusations of dumping be dealt with diplomatically rather than tit for tat retaliation which can quickly spin out of control.

And once you legitimise tariffs and subsidies in order to counteract "dumping", then all of a sudden the equilibrium number of dumping accusations to the authorities starts skying, and you are back to it doing more harm than good all over again.

The better approximation to reality is therefore all tariffs are bad, m'kay?

 

[respect]

And once you legitimise tariffs and subsidies in order to counteract "dumping", then all of a sudden the equilibrium number of dumping accusations to the authorities starts skying, and you are back to it doing more harm than good all over again.

The better approximation to reality is therefore all tariffs are bad, m'kay?

Agreed. Instigating a trade war because you are angry about alleged dumping will hurt you a lot more than the original dumping. Tariffs are economic masochism.

 

[Francesca R]

It is also not universally agreed that there is anything ethically wrong with loss-leading, cross-subsidy and what is known as "predatory pricing". Although the more one favours industrial policy as a legitimate function of the state, the more one will see such practices as "not cricket"

 

[blutoski]

It would much preferred that accusations of dumping be dealt with diplomatically rather than tit for tat retaliation which can quickly spin out of control.

I'm not sure there's a distinction. My impression is that tariffs are a tool of diplomacy.

 

[Francesca R]

Tariffs are policy, not diplomacy.

 

[michaelsuede]

Legitimizing the use of coercive force against innocent people who have harmed no one, stolen no property, and have not threatened anyone by their actions is immoral.

Collectivism ultimately relies on and depends upon the use of coercion to take the fruits of people's productive labor from them.

It is a very evil and violent philosophy.

Further, it always reduces the productive output of society, and will eventually with time return that society to the stone ages as innovation and the motivation to labor is reduced to near zero.

 

[Francesca R]