• kersplomp@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Property tax is the big thing that forces people to engage with capitalism against their will.

    Without property tax, you could live off-grid for eternity. But with property tax, you always have to earn money, and the people that control that money therefore control you.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    For many states property taxes are the majority of funding for public schools. If that’s the case for the pictured person, the sign could also read:

    “I got my public education for free from age 5-18 funded from others paying property taxes including learning how to read and write to make this sign you’re reading. Now that I’ve received that free public education and benefited from it, I’m not interested in paying for any kids to be educated using my dollars. F you, I got mine.”

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    i mean, this is less of a property tax issue and more of a social security thing.

    Though i am pretty fundamentally against property tax, it’s a physical thing that i can own, i don’t see why i should pay taxes on it. If you want to tax me just hit me with income tax.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        except for the fact that it’s a wealth tax on wealth that’s not really consequential. An income tax by definition must tax ALL income earned by an individual, you cannot hide from that, it’s definitionally, evasion.

        • m0darn@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          How is real estate wealth not consequential?Real estate wealth is real wealth, it’s why it’s literally in the name.

          Personal income tax is not a wealth tax, and there are myriad ways to avoid it without evading it.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            it’s pretty fundamental, there is only a fixed amount of land that exists in the country. A billionaire has roughly 1 billion more dollars than i do. I have roughly one billion dollars less than them, they, weirdly enough, don’t have one billion more times land than me.

            Theoretically they should have “1 billion times more property tax” than i do, but i’m going to imagine that’s not even possible under current tax law.

            Personal income tax is not a wealth tax, and there are myriad ways to avoid it without evading it.

            yeah, because then it’s not income.

    • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Property has infrastructure like water, roads, electrical, sewers, etc running to it that needs to be maintained. It also has things like fire fighting police surveyors etc that need to be paid in order to maintain society. Everyone could work in a city therefore the city/county/state would collect the income tax but the local town you live in doesn’t get any of that money.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      income tax.

      the wealthy dodge this by a bunch of schemes that don’t count as ‘income’.

      I hate paying property tax, but reckon it’s the only way to get money out of the fortunate ones that are lucky enough to own a chunk.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      People need to stop thinking about property like it’s any other regular thing like a vehicle.

      Land is not a thing it is a limited resource.

      If someone owns a piece of land in a city it doesn’t matter what they are currently doing with it, even if they do nothing with it, that’s wasting potential that someone else could be doing with it and affects everyone around that piece of land.

  • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    So he bought a house for 6k 50 years go and now has to pay 2k in property taxes each year. If he was renting that wouldn’t cover two months.

    Does he also complain that the sales tax on candy bar is more than he used to pay for a candy bar when he first bought his house?

    • candybrie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      The real problem if that’s the scenario is that his social security check is less than $400/month.

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          Which means he’s paying $12k in property taxes a year. That does sound quite substantial. Assuming that’s somewhat equivalent to rates in the UK, I pay around £1400.

          • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            Most places are around 1% of value with many having caps on increases in value or other differences in taxed and actual value. This means his house is worth 1,000,000 to 1,600,000

            If he was really living on 24k he wouldn’t be able to pay 12,000 in property tax. He bought when it cost almost nothing and spent most of his life paying neither rent nor mortgage unlike most of us and has a reasonable retirement.

            He could at any time sell and live better than you or I even if he didn’t have a dime other than the house. Instead he uses his time to whine about his good fortune.

            • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days ago

              You are making a lot of assumptions there but setting that aside, I’m not sure I’m in favour of turfing a pensioner out of their home to pay tax because they lucked out. Surely it’d be better to settle up after they die. It’s not like he’s preventing a needy young family moving in - presumably anyone buying this house would need to be pretty wealthy!

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    How big is his house? How much is it worth now?

    How much did he pay for the land it sits on? Or did he inherit that?

    Who does he think maintains road networks and all the other infrastructure he relies on?

    • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      While these are fair questions, I think it’s a reasonable stance to take that you shouldn’t literally get taxed out of your home if you come into poverty, which unfortunately can include Social Security recipients. I know we all need to pay taxes and contribute to society to the extent that we’re reasonably able to, but I’m not so sure this is the best way to make it happen. For property beyond your primary residence, sure, but for your only home, I don’t super like it.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        If your home is now worth millions, you’re now rich and can afford the taxes. If you have no income, sell the house. If you want to live in it, do a reverse mortgage. If you want to pass on your house to your heirs, creating generational wealth while not paying your share of taxes now, fuck you, pay up.

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Assuming the house is worth millions is a faulty premise. Housing prices have exploded in the last 5-10 years, and that can mean that a home bought decades ago is worth many times its original value, causing a huge increase in property taxes, but still being in line with other regular homes. People who bought decades ago might have had the home appreciate to 10x the value of initial purchase, just to end up still in line with median home prices. Selling their house won’t fix the tax rate, it’ll just add some leftover mortgage value after they pay taxes on the profit from selling their massively value-inflated home. So now, instead of just paying property taxes, they pay comparable property taxes and the remainder of a new mortgage.

          I can agree on inheritance taxes, but I don’t think it’s super fair to heavily tax the owner a primary home of a reasonable value when they’re not selling the home, giving it away, allocating it through inheritance, or otherwise transferring it. Maybe if it’s a mansion, but a simple, normal home, maybe on some farm land? I don’t see a problem with a family having the security of knowing that come hell or high water, they have a home they won’t lose to anything but a natural disaster. We all need to contribute to society as it contributes to us, but I don’t think that should come at the expense of security in basic essentials like housing.

            • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days ago

              And I just don’t agree with that. I don’t think we should have to pay property taxes at all on a reasonably priced primary residence, as set by local and national standards. Housing should be considered more of a right. We all need to contribute to taxes, yes, no dispute there, but I don’t see this as a fair way to do so. Now, if it’s an extra property or a particularly lavish home, yeah, tax the piss out of them. But taxing someone into homelessness should never happen because one of the state’s core goals at least should be seeing that everyone’s basic needs are met, and that includes housing.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 days ago

                I agree it’s reasonable for housing to be a right, but I disagree that home ownership should be a right.

                • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 days ago

                  Okay, but how do you intend to accomplish that without costing the government more tax money? The most cost effective first step seems to me to be to just not tax a reasonable primary residence. Providing housing the inhabitants don’t own costs someone money in building and maintaining that property, and since we’re agreeing that housing should be a right, the only way I can see to guarantee that would be through government funding. And we probably should do that for some people, at least those most in need, but what’s the sense in forcing people in poverty out of their home of decades just because they can’t afford the property taxes, especially when that means pushing them into housing the government is actively paying for? Why is it that we can agree that everyone deserves housing, but we can’t agree that they should be able to own that housing? There are other ways to raise that tax money, and the obvious choice is to increase taxes on those with a gross excess, not those who have managed to achieve stability after decades of work.

  • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Property tax rates are based on how much your city/county needs to operate. Property values change, but so do mill rates. Most cities aren’t allowed to take surplus tax, so they tweak the mill rate when property values fluctuate.

  • sfu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I would be more okay with property tax, IF once you reached a certain age (or disabled), you were not required to pay property tax.

    • deltamental@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Yes, we can cover the resulting tax shortfall by increasing the tax on single mothers, first-generation low-income homebuyers, and renters.

      Look at the result of California’s tax policy (which was designed with aims similar to yours): an entire generation of young people will never be able to afford a home in the place they grew up in, while millionaire retirees get a huge tax break while making thousands renting out spare rooms in their massive houses on AirBnB.

      These kinds of special tax carve outs sound nice in theory, because it seems like you are just “not taking money from old and disabled people”, but that tax burden falls on everyone else, as does the massive distortion of the market. You are in fact taking more money from other people, who may be hurting even more.

      And don’t tell me, “We’ll fund it by a tax on the rich”. If that’s your proposal, get that tax on the rich passed, and dole out the proceeds to elderly at risk of homelessness. Have it officially be budgeted, so that we can decide if keeping an elderly person in their $2.1m 5 bedroom home is worth cuts elsewhere. As of now, such policies are mostly robbing middle class young people blind.

        • Noxy@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          I like that idea, but it’d have to come with some mechanism to prevent parasites from buying a bunch of them up and renting them out.

          fuck if I know what such a mechanism would look like though…

          • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            Tax homes based on how many you own, and how many are vacant. Allow two homes at a regular rate; Enough for a summer and winter home. Then ratchet tax rates up as the person buys more.

            And if the third, fourth, fifth, etc home sits vacant for more than a few months out of the year? The tax rate goes up even more, so giant corporations can’t just buy entire neighborhoods and sit on them to remove them from the market and increase property values for the other homes they own across town. Because that’s what’s happening now; Giant corps are buying homes and letting them sit vacant, just to remove them from the market so they can charge higher rates elsewhere. Allow a few months of grace for renovations and finding tenants… But after a ~3 month grace period, that tax rate skyrockets.

            And then take the revenue from these increased taxes, and use them to fund First Time Homebuyer programs, so home ownership becomes more available to the people who are renting. Incentivize the corporations to actually flip the houses and resell or rent them, instead of just sitting on them.

              • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                Alternate take: If we actually implemented my above plan, you wouldn’t need to be stupidly rich to own two homes. Home prices would be reasonable, because there wouldn’t be giant corporations hoarding all of the real estate.

                We have over two vacant houses for every single homeless person in the country. We could give every single homeless person a house, and still have plenty to act as summer cabins. And that’s before you even factor in the fact that the market would be flooded with houses (at least in the short term) from corporations trying to avoid the increased taxes.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    So property tax I am ok with, in theory. The people with property in a city should pay for services like fire, schools, police, road maintenance… What gets me is when the city wants more and more for stupid shit like iPads for all students… Every 3 years due to forced upgrades or just old style deprecation over 3 years.

    The amount my taxes go up each year is more than any raise I get. Then add on insurance which has gone insane. I paid off my house to avoid a 20k female flood insurance bill because a 1 foot piece of concrete touched a high risk flood zone. A technicality because if I took down a screen patio, then I wouldn’t have to pay.

    It’s insane how expensive owning a house has become

    • Mataresian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yea generally electronics is depreciated every 3 to 5 years. But I can imagine that after 3 years of children usage they are done for. That aside though, I think what you would be more looking for is a fair tax system.

      What I think that the problem with local property taxes is that if a city relies on it too much to pay for everything then this causes too many issues. For a poor city this could mean that if they don’t increase the taxes they can’t afford basic school care which people expect. So they moved to riched areas who can provide that. Or they move because of the higher taxes. This in turn lowers the property value and decreases the taxes further. Which in turn increases the problem.

      So I believe the educational budget should be provided by the central government so the same kind of quality in schools is given nationwide. This can of course be applied to other costs a city is making.

      In addition to this I think a property tax should be progressive and link to your overall assets. If you just own one house and you don’t have any more assets. Then why should you be taxed as much as somebody who owns a lot more (of course if the house is 2m and you’re living of social security it is a different story. L

      • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Top down education doesn’t work, that’s how we get stuck with schools that have massive IT budgets with little to show for them. Most teachers don’t use anything beyond spreadsheets and Youtube.
        I don’t think that there is an easy fix.
        I’d like to think local autonomy would help, so small communities could design their own curriculum, but I’m too much of a pessimist and see such experiments failing quickly because of corruption and incompetence.

  • KulunkelBoom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    They dangle the carrot of “home ownership” as if anyone ever owns a home that can be taken away for not paying taxes.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      TBH, property taxes could be a necessary evil, like only imposing them above a certain number of owned homes, to curb some companies buying up homes en masse to control the rent market, but I have a weird feeling they might not be the ones paying these taxes.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    That’s the thing about increasing home prices nobody talks about. It increases the “value” of your home, so you’re taked more.

    When my parents retired, they didn’t move out to the country to get away from the city life. They did it because it saved them 40 grand a year in property taxes.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        It’s really not that crazy in some areas.

        They had municipal taxes, county taxes, school district taxes (when massive school bonds pass every single year without fail that one can really add up), emergency service district taxes, Water District taxes, Healthcare District taxes.

        That shit adds up when the value of your property doubles every 3 years like it has been doing in Texas.

        • glockenspiel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          No, $40k/yr in property taxes is insane unless your parents own several mansions, even for Texas where the highest property tax rates are around 2.5%. Even if you tack on millages and bonds and other things there’s no way it gets near that.

          There’s a lot of bad takes and clear misinformation from disaffected people in this thread. Stuff like this should be obvious.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            For the city. Then double the city rate for the school district, then add some more for the MUDs and the County and the Health district and the Emergency services district. Shit adds up fast, and when you buy a house new for 180 grand and a few years later it’s valued at 700 grand, you have to move because you can no longer afford to pay the taxes.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                I work for a city where the stupid-rich live. Their houses are NUTS. I recently approved construction of a 5,000sft guest house with a rooftop tennis court. We have over a dozen houses in active construction that cost over 15 million dollars, and no new structures being built under 4 million.

                We actually have standards in our development code regarding servant’s quarters. And the most important thing to know about those standards is that they’re required to be smaller than the minimum allowable size for guest quarters. Can’t have the Servant’s getting all uppity.

                But the thing is, they pay very little in taxes as a portion of their wealth. They have enough political power that they founded a 4mi^2 enclave as its own city entirely surrounded by a major city. They also managed to get their own school district. As a result, they have some of the lowest taxes in the state. Someone with a 7 million dollar house here will pay the same amount of money in property taxes as someone with a half-million dollar condo 2 miles away, because the rates for the school district and city for the wealthy are so low.

                For utility districys, they get out of paying property tax by having the city provide it directly without a WCID by contracting to the major city next door that gives them the utilities at a loss to keep the rich assholes happy and supplying campaign donations.

                All that to say, then people that are hurt by property taxes aren’t the rich. It’s people living in areas where the value of homes go up faster than income can keep up with the taxes. My parents eventually had to sell and move. And yeah, they made a nice profit off their house, but they still had to move away from the city they’d lived in for 60 years, and now live 30 minutes from the nearest gas station even though they used to be solidly urbanites.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    I don’t understand inflation, so as an old landowner I think I shouldn’t have to pay taxes.

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      It is kinda fucked up if retired are forced to move out from their house via taxation. Only ones who benefits are real estate companies

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Property taxes do hit retired people differently though. Taxing based on what the government says your land is worth instead of your income is absolutely meant to create opportunities for real estate agents and developers at the expense of the people living there.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Taxes based on assets tax those with assets, instead of income taxes which tax those who work.

        If old man owns such a valuable piece of land, he deserves to pay his fair share for the public services he used.

        It’s like saying you don’t want to pay for schools because you’re not a student.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          The fact that schools are funded by the surrounding area is crap and needs to change. He’s retired with a social security income. He paid into the system his entire life already. Telling him he must sell and move out because he’s not wealthy enough is exactly what we should be working against. It’s a system by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

          • bizarroland@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            Of course you are looking at outliers and I feel like you’re right to the point that outliers like that should have special assessments or breaks.

            Where I live, the taxes are pretty high for real estate, but if you are a senior citizen, you can get a discount where your tax rate is locked in at the value that it was when you retired.

            I also have some acquaintances who inherited a house and at the time houses were very cheap but they didn’t pay the taxes and they were super upset that they were going to lose their house because they didn’t pay the taxes.

            So now they’re bunking up and living in apartments and Scattered because they didn’t want to drum up the two or three thousand dollars a year in real estate taxes that they had to pay to keep an entire house.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 days ago

            The fact that schools are funded by the surrounding area is crap and needs to change. It’s a system by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

            Unless there is an article or background on the guy in the picture you’re projecting a HUGE amount of stuff you just made up on that guy.

            He’s retired with a social security income.

            That’s what his sign says. I take him at his word on that one.

            He paid into the system his entire life already.

            Well, no he didn’t. He didn’t start paying into it until he started earning money. Likely for the first 18 years of his life, he lived of what other people put into the system. Many of those people that paid for him are in the situation he’s in right now, except now he sees it as unfair.

            Telling him he must sell and move out

            No one is telling him to move out. He certainly isn’t saying he will be forced to move if he has to continue to pay property taxes. You just made that up.

            because he’s not wealthy enough is exactly what we should be working against.

            He’s not saying he is not wealthy enough. You just made that up. In fact, his sign is indicating he does have he wealth to cover the property taxes via his Social Security. He’s saying he doesn’t’ believe he should have to pay anything one something he bought decades ago while he continues to enjoy the services of the city and society the tax dollars pay for.