| HN Mirror

Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?

amunicio 2329 days ago

This is not a good argument. It would be the equivalent of me asking: Does the trash pickup service, repairing potholes or patrolling the street cost more if the home owner just moved in than if has own the house for 30 years?

Well, that does argue for my previous stated idea of charging every property owner the same fee for the same service.

Trash pickup is actually a great example. Where I live it’s not part of your property taxes. It’s a separate bill and everyone pays the same amount.

The city council can set budgets for the different departments and set taxes based on the budget. Neighborhoods already do something similar via homeowner’s association fees and condo fees.

Yes.

How so?

Some land is more valuable than other land. Living on top of more valuable land consumes a more valuable resource.

hundt 2329 days ago

You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think.

Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property is not, because it also captures the value of the property as an asset. So that's why I think your argument is too broad.

Imputed rent is (roughly) proportional the the value of the property, So a tax on one is the same as a tax on the other.

The land isn’t more valuable because of some inherent virtue of the land.

It’s only more valuable because tech bro’s want it.

You could say the same thing for almost all goods and services which are subject to consumption taxes.