[pc86]

It's interesting that in your example, your specific situation would still have tax rates subsidized by your neighbors while the people you consider the out-group (corporations, landlords) get minimal or no benefit from it. I'm also not convinced corporations are getting any outsized benefit, business buy and sell real estate all the time.

The fix doesn't seem complicated. Assess a home's value. Tax it. If you're concerned about it disproportionately impacting low or fixed income folks, move as much of that tax as you can to income and commuter taxes.

[olliej]

There’s so much wrong with this.

The people paying the property taxes are the tenants. Except they’re paying market rate for the property while the owner pays far below that actual rate. In other words the artificially lowered tax rate is just a profit center for the owner.

Second, the owner does benefit from those property taxes: the property taxes fund a bunch of the infrastructure that makes their property have value, that makes tenants interested, covers police and fire, etc

Except because the land owners in these cases aren’t paying their fair share, so in addition to profiting off tenants that are paying market rate for the property owners are being subsidized by the increased base rate others have to pay.

People do not have direct control over the market value of their property so it is trivial to have a world where people’s property taxes could increase beyond what they could afford at all, while simultaneously pricing them out moving (to “realize” the “value” of their home), but if you’re renting a property out at the market rate then you should be paying taxes at the market rate.

[pc86]

You seem to think I'm arguing for some sort of landlord handout when in actuality I'm arguing that people pay fair market rate for everything, including their property taxes, at all times.

If your property taxes are too expensive for you, you should move.

[coryrc]

You could delay the tax collection above a certain amount until sale of the property. But I'm against allowing people to sit on valuable property while contributing little back to society. Get a reverse mortgage or move out.

[pc86]

Delaying the collection has weird side effects and edge cases where if you hold on to the property long enough you could get into a position where you will actually lose money selling it, or worse yet even have to write a check to the government when you sell your house.

I would agree in general that if you can't afford the market-rate property taxes on your home, you should move. And stuff like Prop 13 just makes your neighbors subsidize you.

[archagon]

Nobody should be forced to move due to their home increasing in value outside their control.

[pc86]

I see this argued a lot but never with any reason why other than hand-wavey arguments about "fairness." Why are high property taxes pricing someone out of area inherently worse than property values or insurance costs forcing someone out?

If you can't afford to live there, shouldn't you have to live somewhere else? Even if you think housing is a human right, housing in the specific city/neighborhood/suburb/street of your choice is not.

[lores]

Economics ignore anything that's uncountable like life enjoyment or community ties. People who have lived somewhere long enough for prices to have spiralled out of control likely score high on those measures. Kicking people out of a life and community they not only enjoy, but probably even define them, is in my opinion barbaric.

[archagon]

I think it should be something close to a right to continue living in your primary residence until you pass away. Being forced to move against your will is a difficult and traumatic experience, especially if you’re older and rely on a local support network.