Trust me, if the government had a way to tax other forms of wealth as easily as they do property, they’d do it, and that poor widow would have to hock her ring. If you think about it, it makes far more sense to tax wealth than income, go where the money IS! What we have is like taxing the little tributary stream and not the giant lake. And as Warren Buffett has said, our tax system favors people who live off their wealth like Mitt Romney rather than people who work by taxing their investement gains at far less than work earnings. It should be the reverse!
1 Like
Here in NJ, every year they adjust the multiplier for what they guess to be the average appreciation of the entire tax base. Not doing something like that seems insane. The citywide revaluations are needed because in any city areas appreciate at different rates so over time that multiplier loses accuracy at the ends of the bell curve.
Okay perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but my understanding is that property taxes are based on the whole value of a home and levied every year. So you get taxed on the same wealth each year and end up losing it all over time if you don’t compensate with income.
Why aren’t the property taxes instead based on the change in equity? After all that’s what we are arguing about: homeowners who suddenly have the ability to sell their home for a large profit shouldn’t get that tax-free. But like wise homeowners who suddenly find themselves sitting on a million dollar home shouldn’t be taxed like they’re making a million every single year.
So basically what I’m asking is why not treat change in property value as income (or loss) and tax it the same way? Then perhaps make profit from selling your home tax-deductible (up to what it was last evaluated / taxed at). Then no one pays more into this system then they get out of it.
Because that don’t pay the bills, what if property didn’t appreciate, that has happened if you recall. We have system where cities use property tax as a primary source of revenue. They don’t care whether you have any equity at all. You’re being taxed for your share of running the town, and by your property’s value seem fairer than by per capita share or reported income. Yes, you’re paying for the privilege of owning that property, whether it’s your home or business.
Another name for the vast majority of people living off their wealth is ‘retirees’. You know people that have been busting their asses for the previous 40 years.
2 Likes
There’s lots of programs for retirement tax advantages, why should a 30 year old trustafarian pay 15% on their investment income and nothing at all into SS when someone working is paying >40%.
2 Likes
I feel like the answer is a higher (progressive) income tax then, or in other words making the biggest benefactors of the city pay their damn share, not taxing everyone on the same dollar of earned assets each year. That just pushes out lower income people and leads to more stratified communities (which leads to more stratified tax bases and therefore more inequality in education, infrastructure, etc).
ETA: Im seeing both sides here, and it seems like the lever we’re given to fight over for balance is mathematically shit.
2 Likes
That’s the direction NYC takes, they have a city income tax, and absurdly low residential taxes. I’ve seen like $3k tax on a $2m condo. But they can subsidize those with a tremendous commercial tax base. One of the things they’ve found in the offshore investment boom is since many of these >$10m homes are never occupied, they never get the income tax on the millionaires that they expected.
2 Likes
That’s really interesting. I suspect most of the people in this thread have no freaking idea what the issues are in California. I base this suspicion on the nonsense being spouted by persons not of this state.
Prop 13 is a multi-decade disaster for homeowners that works to the advantage of the rich and corporations and to the disadvantage of actual living breathing human beings. This California homeowner supports gutting Prop 13.
Tax the Rich or BBQ them!
3 Likes
It’s complicated, but prop 13 has done more harm than good.
What does that mean?
WTactualF sort of blanket assumption is that where you think us near/in that age ranges are about “earning wealth for someone else”?
[quote=“jannamark, post:129, topic:86764”]
I suspect most of the people in this thread have no freaking idea what the issues are in California.[/quote]
We pay considerable taxes in California.
The article you link has very little to say about prop 13, except lamenting that landlord savings were not passed on to tenants, which I agree was not reasonable. Mainly it depicts the considerable housing crisis in San Francisco as one of demand far outstripping supply, especially barriers to new development. Thanks for the link, it is an interesting read, but it doesn’t really have much to do with this prop 13 discussion.
I’m not sure I agree with the development aspect of the article - I think the Bay Area is already overdeveloped - but for sure if you are going to turn a region into an industrial powerhouse you need find a way to house the workers, not only those who work in the new industry but also those who do everything else that keeps the community running. This was well understood by the rust belt industrialists of the 19th and early 20th century, who build housing right alongside their factories.
1 Like
A subject which, if boingboing was my only source of news, I would come to see as a disaster on the scale of the K-T impact or the Tambora explosion.
Thought experiment: I wonder what BB would look like if its editors were based in Bakersfield, Milwaukee, Baton Rouge, Omaha and Buffalo?
1 Like
Lol, 40% eh? That is an interesting question. The way you frame it, it appears that some rich kid is living off the bacls of the middle class. Oh course the person paying that 40% is bringing in a half million a year and subsidizing the people bringing in 38k and paying 15% in income taxes. Except for the very few trustifarians that are named Kardashian most at that age are going to be either in the 15% or the 25% bracket if you counted it all as income so it’s not really as outlandish as it’s made out to be to be paying 17% in capital gains. The smart trustifarians turn that money into a business and then they are paying income tax as they are paying income tax if the captal gains are not long term. Capital gains being lower than income is a nudge to encourage long term investment. It could be better with a progressively decreasing rate to take more volatility out of the market but then people would be screaming about rich people paying 5% taxes on income because they left it in for 10 years. As for SS, they won’t be pulling any SS anyways.
Quark (from DS9) screaming at the horror of a Trump ferengi… Although honestly, Trump would kind of make a good one.
1 Like
If you are not working for yourself, but are employed by someone else, then you are earning wealth for someone else. Even if you are also doing well yourself. It’s true of all of us, actually.
6 Likes
[quote=“anon61221983, post:137, topic:86764”]
If you are not working for yourself, but are employed by someone else, then you are earning wealth for someone else.[/quote]
So we really don’t need property taxes at all, all the public employees they support should just work harder to create more wealth for the local residents and then we can tax that.
1 Like
I’m talking about private industry here. When you work for someone else, you are making money for someone else. When you work for the state, that’s a horse of a different color. You are paid with tax dollar and are contributing directly to the management of our society. Totes uncool and only suckers do that, I know, but I think that’s the truth. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many of us only care about ourselves and our direct circle, instead of something bigger.
7 Likes
I have to pay council tax* and I don’t even own a property.
I’d rather pay it than the alternative though (that would be like what the Winter of Discontent was like, regarding uncollected rubbish)
* Technically I get %100 council tax relief, but I could potentially lose that and I still get a bill every year.
1 Like
