ABOLISH PROPERTY TAXES RIGHT FUCKING NOW
>>70899894
Nay.
If anything property taxes are too low across the board.
Low land tax means it's profitable to hoard land even at the most desired locations and proceed to do nothing with it while waiting for developers to get desperate. Wonder why urban homes are fucking expensive?
This drives developers to sprawl out and buy worthless rural land instead. Far enough out that the landowner is desperate.
>>70901145
> I own this land, but if I don't pay money to the government they take it away from me
Do you enjoy getting cucked by the government?
So here we are again... What about polony?
>>70901904
FUCKING FRENCH
SOMETHING SOMETHING
INSULT
BAD
ETC.
>>70899894
They're the only completely justified taxes t
>>70901145
In the US land is cheap as all fuck.
I own about 100 acres across the country.
Put yourself in the mindset of the US.
Urban property taxes have nothing to do with price stability- they are an extortion scheme to pay for government programs.
>>70904464
>buy property
>property increases in value as the economy grows
>you earn this income in your sleep without exerting an ounce of effort whatsoever
>you are asked to pay a portion of this unearned economic rent to the government to support public goods
>"REEEE! THIS IS EXTORTION!"
>>70899894
i love how the people on pol say they hate being cucked by the gov then support trump
>>70904690
>asked
>public goods
You better give up those shekels, Shaniqua needs her fat cheque and uncle Sam will seize your land if you dont
>>70904878
property taxes don't pay for welfare, they pay for fire and police departments, schools, roads, etc.
i bet you don't even know what a public good is.
>>70904690
>public goods
Tyrone and Ledasha's ebt is not what I consider 'public goods'
>>70904800
Nice try shill
Have they refused to give you guys a pay rise or something? The shilling has been fucking shit in the last 2 weeks.
Or do you still do it for free?
>>70904952
Here in Los Angeles there is a Police fund foundation that buys just about everything for the police department because 98% of the government funds go to pay for bloated pension plans for retired codgers that sat as a desk sergeant for over 30 years.
So shut the fuck up.
>>70904690
>Property increases in value
1.
>Lrn2Finance
The purchase of real estate, like the utilization of any and all capital, is a risk and subject to market fluctuations.
2.
>Lrn2Accounting
This is an unrecognized accounting gain until the property is sold. What does it matter that the FMV has increased? I'm just living in it at the moment, not getting any extras money from the increase in FMV. At the point of sale, if it's greater than the amount I paid for it, then it comes into relevance because I made a return on it.
Using your logic, property should be treated the same way as a capital gains tax works on securities- realized and applied at the point of sale.
3.
>Lrn2Public Administration
We have the sales taxes and income taxes to pay for local and state goods and services, which are a more honest means of getting revenue. One can own land if quite a good and appreciating value, but still be dirt poor. Why use the property tax as an addition source of revenue (or extraction of capital from the economy) when the same can be accomplished by fewer, targeted taxes?
4.
>without exerting an ounce of effort
Lrn2homeownership.
Any work done improving your property or developing increases its value much more and much more quickly than simple inflation. People can buy up land in Wyoming, do nothing in it, and wait 3I years for developers to come by but that in and of itself is not a viable investment strategy .
Most property owners who make a return on their propertiea as investments develo and maintain them, which is a pain in the ass a lot of the time.
>>70905009
>ebt is funded by property taxes
>thinking you deserve to keep every penny of unearned income you receive from holding property
property taxes are the only truly based form of taxation.
can they be too high? yes. separate issue.
are most governments wasteful and extravagant? yes. separate issue.
are many local and state governments being sucked dry by corrupt public sector unions? yes. separate issue.
every other form of taxation causes far greater dead weight losses to the economy. properly appraised property taxes cause almost no dead weight loss to the economy and are thus truly based as far as taxes go.
>>70905349
I gotta agree with the finn and the poster under you in this one.
You can use all the fancy terms you want and moral whipsnaggery that only makes sense for you rich as fuck folk, but for the rest of us its total shit that someone buys a fuckload of land and property and refuses to sell it to the people actually using it for years.
Rent is just burning your money, and some guy owning all the land located in a convenient place and keeping it empty because he isn't getting paid what he thinks its worth, is bullshit.
Without property taxes, this will only get worse. At that point
and before you start, no, I don't give a shit about the free market and I'm not going to argue within your arbitrary free market bible guidelines.
>>70905349
>The purchase of real estate, like the utilization of any and all capital, is a risk and subject to market fluctuations.
And that risk includes knowing that you'll have to pay property taxes in the unlikely event that there is a short term drop in the value of your asset.
>Lrn2Accounting
An increase in your property value is an increase in your net worth. There's absolutely no reason why this gain in your equity shouldn't be taxable, regardless of whether or not the gain has been realized or unrealized.
>We have the sales taxes and income taxes to pay for local and state goods and services, which are a more honest means of getting revenue
Sales taxes and income taxes are both economically indefensible. Sales taxes are regressive as fuck, and income taxes are literally punishing people for working and creating value. There's nothing "honest" about it, both of those taxes are necessarily forms of theft.
>Any work done improving your property or developing increases its value much more and much more quickly than simple inflation. People can buy up land in Wyoming, do nothing in it, and wait 3I years for developers to come by but that in and of itself is not a viable investment strategy .
>Most property owners who make a return on their propertiea as investments develo and maintain them, which is a pain in the ass a lot of the time.
This is correct. Ideally a property tax would be assessed on the unimproved value of land only, and no tax shall be levied upon improvements to real estate. That way you aren't punishing people for making improvements to their property and you are only taxing income that is 100% unearned.
>>70905349
Phone typos.
I'm not drunk of Asian.
>>70905559
>No dead weight loss
That depends which public goods and services they are being applied towards
Pic related : NYC's lions share of property taxes go toward its public schooling system . It already spends massively more per student (including and excluding faculty pay ) than almost anywhere else with little discernible effect.
Many towns and cities across the US are better at college placement, SAT scores, ACT scores and PISA because demographics are a better predictor of academic success than money per student .
NYC property taxes effectively go to babysitting niglets and to the corrupt teacher's union.
>>70906169
>>No dead weight loss
>That depends which public goods and services they are being applied towards
No it doesn't. What the revenue is spent on is completely irrelevant to cost of the taxation to the economy, which is what deadweight loss is.
http://thismatter.com/economics/deadweight-loss-of-taxation.htm
>>70905964
>I agree with the Finn
But I demonstrated we were worling under different premises. Finland is a rather small nation. The US is huge.
>The poster under me
And he never responded to my points by the time you wrote this
>Rich as fuck folk
The poor get shafted the hardest by property tax . Rich trust fund renters do just fine, while the the farmer pays out the nose (yes, I realize exemptions exist for agro).
>someone buys a fuckload of land and refuses to sell it to the people actually using it for years
This is Econ 101 stuff. Supply and demand. Usually the cheap as fuck land is near worthless, so people either buy a lot of it or don't bother. If people begin to see value, then it may be reaonable for the owner to start selling. Its not economical to hold out for 20 or 30 years waiting for inflation and urbanization. The owner would be 3/4 dead by then. That's why most people who make a return on land
1.
Develop it , rent it
2.
Sell it to the first person that makes a reasonable offer (because of the time value of money)
>Some guy owning all the land
So your argument is that ownership of an asset should be justified, used to help those around the owner, or taxed in some way?
Fine. I want a 10% tax on everything you own, including your safe deposit box. You're not using it to invest at the moment, so I'm just helping that process along.
If you want cheap land, move out the fucking city and buy it.
Otherwise by pure and simple high demand and low supply, no shit property in the city would be expensive .
>>70906641
>Fine. I want a 10% tax on everything you own, including your safe deposit box. You're not using it to invest at the moment, so I'm just helping that process along.
shit in your deposit box isn't necessary. Land, aka space you occupy in order to exist when you're not at work, is absolutely necessary.
>If you want cheap land, move out the fucking city and buy it.
There is pretty much nothing outside of the main cities, its rural shit with no jobs, which is why rural folk are all on the trump train to bring in da jobs.
Renting in the city should be rent to own, at the very least, if one person is allowed to own so much land.
>>70906641
>But I demonstrated we were worling under different premises. Finland is a rather small nation. The US is huge.
Completely irrelevant to the principle at hand.
>The poor get shafted the hardest by property tax
Completely false in the scenario where taxes are levied upon the unimproved value of land. The rental value of land is set purely by demand since the supply of land is perfectly inelastic.
>>70906000
>And that risk includes knowing that you'll have to pay property taxes in the unlikely event that there is a short term drop in the value of your asset.
We are arguing over the existence and the degree of property tax.
One of your arguments for the existence of degree of property tax was that property ownership per se is unearned income.
To which I replied that even if one does earn income from their property, the "unearned" factor was abolsved by the amount of risk the property owner assumed.
>An increase in your property value is an increase in your net worth.
An increase in net worth is only realized at point of sale, and adjusted retroactively if need be.
axes are both economically indefensible. Sales taxes are regressive as fuck, and income taxes are literally punishing people for working and creating value. There's nothing "honest" about it, both of those taxes are necessarily forms of theft.
>Any work done improving your property or developing increases its value much more and much more quickly than simple inflation. People can buy up land in Wyoming, do nothing in it, and wait 3I years for developers to come by but that in and of itself is not a viable investment strategy .
>Most property owners who make a return on their propertiea as investments develo and maintain them, which is a pain in the ass a lot of the time.
This is correct. Ideally a property tax would be assessed on the unimproved value of land only, and no tax shall be levied upon improvements to real estate. That way you aren't punishing people for making improvements to their property and you are only taxing income that is 100% unearned.
>>70906000
>There's absolutely no reason why this gain in your equity shouldn't be taxable,
There's no reason it should. All other taxes are Income Statement taxes ( Income Taxes), or Cash Flow taxes (Sales Taxes).
This is a tax on the assumed valuation of one's assets
>regardless of whether or not the gain has been realized or unrealized.
If it's unrealized, the owner is in no way profiting from it until point of sale.
> Sales taxes are regressive as fuck,
People spend more, they pay more. If a person owns a parcel of land and has a small budget, why should he pay into the system?
>income taxes are literally punishing people for working and creating value.
Your main point was that property tax is defensible because ones net worth increase should also mean an increase in amount paid in goods and services, even when unrealized.
So when we have a realized and liquid net worth increase via income, it doesn't count?
No.
You are merely a unit of production for the Federal Government. You will pay. No one in America owns anything.
Do you own a car? Bullshit you will pay yearly registration.
Do you own property? Bullshit.
It's time you faggots start to realize where the fuck you live.
>>70906481
>dead weight loss
And my assertion is that it depends where and how the taxes are being distributed, and in the case of property taxes, often badly.
>deadweight loss can be applied to any deficiency caused by an inefficient allocation of resources
>>70907262
>People spend more, they pay more. If a person owns a parcel of land and has a small budget, why should he pay into the system?
Because they are benefiting from the public goods that are provided by paying into the system. To not pay would be to be a free rider.
"People spend more, they pay more" is not an argument. Sales taxes are by far the most regressive taxes on the books and have a high deadweight loss. Property taxes are the least regressive and have the lowest deadweight loss.
>Your main point was that property tax is defensible because ones net worth increase should also mean an increase in amount paid in goods and services, even when unrealized.
Incorrect. My main point is that a tax upon the unimproved value of land is a tax on unearned income which causes no deadweight loss to the economy, and therefore it is far and away the most economically justifiable form of taxation.
If the primary form of government revenue came from property taxes we would have a stronger economy as well as a more fair tax system. It's a win-win for everybody. A stronger economy benefits the wealthy and the middle class, and a more economically just taxation system benefits the lower class.
>>70907489
>And my assertion is that it depends where and how the taxes are being distributed, and in the case of property taxes, often badly.
And this assertion is 100% false. The deadweight loss caused by any form of taxation is completely and totally independent from any further deadweight losses caused by an inefficient use of the revenue by the government.
This is a non-sequitur, you can't be this stupid.
>>70899894
Abolish all taxes, Taxation is theft!
