[arcticbull]

Are you familiar with the concept of noblesse oblige?

Further does this include all taxes or just income taxes which are only a portion of revenues used to make less well off people look like moochers.

For instance, in the US, there’s social security and Medicare taxes -- and payroll tax, the social security and Medicare tax contributed on behalf of employees by employers. Renters also pay their landlords property taxes. Sales taxes, tariffs, etc are all born by end users.

[fallingknife]

Renters do not pay property tax in the US. That liability is entirely on the owner.

[rahimnathwani]

Your statement is technically correct. It's also technically correct to say that diners, not restaurant owners, pay sales taxes.

The reality is more nuanced. Introducing a sales tax on restaurant meals affects both diners and restaurant owners: restaurant owners can't pass on the whole increase to diners, and diners cannot afford to go out as much.

Similarly, property tax levels influence landlords' decisions to enter or exit the rental market, impacting housing supply and, consequently, tenant rents. 'Paying' a tax has two distinct meanings:

- Who bears the economic burden after the tax is introduced

- Who is legally responsible for paying the tax

These two concepts are not always aligned.

[zajio1am]

I appreciate your nuance, as mixing up economic burden and legal responsibility for taxes is a common fallacy in discussions. But specifically for rents in supply-constrained cities, i would guess that supply is highly inelastic, therefore market rate of rents is already as high as acceptable by renters (i.e. determined by demand curve) and therefore property tax would not affect it much.

[fallingknife]

This is a silly distinction because by that standard you could equally say that my employer pays my rent because they are the source of income which I use to pay it.

Property tax in the US is a liability of the owner. This is in contrast to other systems like the UK where it is a liability of the occupant.

[rahimnathwani]

The incidence of taxation is a well-studied concept in economics, with a solid theoretical foundation and empirical evidence backing it.

You dismiss its application as a 'silly distinction' and repeat the fallacy that the incidence of taxation falls on the party who is legally liable.

If you don't believe me, and don't want to read up on 'tax incidence', consider what would happen if sales tax were paid by retailers instead of customers. Would the flow of money change at all? Would any party be worse off or better off?

[lazide]

This is an entirely ridiculous argument. Who actually ‘writes the check’ is actually important in a discussion about who writes the check, despite the fungibility of money. Renters don’t pay the owners property taxes in the US, even if they pay rent. Full stop.

Why this matters is because in some cases, owners can end up ‘under water’ with even rent not covering property taxes in the US.

In other places, that may not be possible.

[eastbound]

No, really, it has been studied, taxes affects both supply and demand. It’s one of the first chapters of any microeconomics book.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Some say that the owners should be permitted to pass that tax bill along to the renter in the form of increased rent. Can't someone think of the poor starving landlords?

Seriously though. Renters pay the property tax, even if they don't get to see the bill.

[jjav]

> Renters do not pay property tax in the US.

There's a simple way to visualize why is not true:

You're renting a property for $1000/mo. Whatever the owner is paying for property taxes, you don't know.

Then, property taxes go up by $200/mo. Do you think your rent won't go up by at least $200/mo as a direct consequence of the tax increase? Because it will. Because the renter is of course paying for all costs, including those taxes.

[kaibee]

> Then, property taxes go up by $200/mo. Do you think your rent won't go up by at least $200/mo as a direct consequence of the tax increase? Because it will. Because the renter is of course paying for all costs, including those taxes.

So, before property taxes went up, the landlord could have raised rents by $200/month, but hadn't because..?

[jjav]

> So, before property taxes went up, the landlord could have raised rents by $200/month, but hadn't because..?

Because you don't pre-date inflation.

It is the same as asking why the supermarket doesn't raise the price of milk to what inflation estimates say it'll probably be next year.

[munksbeer]

>So, before property taxes went up, the landlord could have raised rents by $200/month, but hadn't because..?

Look at it a different way. If the $200/month was a new tax that all renters had to pay, what would happen?

[freejazz]

Could he have?

[bluGill]

Rent does not go up because your landlord has to compete with a landlord one town over where the tax didn't go up and so if your rent goes up you will just move.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Your landlord knows moving is a hassle that you'll avoid if it means paying a little more. So he raises it just enough that you won't just pack up the Uhaul and go live there. Then over the next few years, he does the same again, when he can, until he recoups the property tax, or near enough of it.

Some landlords are bad at guessing the correct numbers. Others are savants. In aggregate, renters end up paying almost all of it over time if not immediately, and those that don't end up suffering in other ways (when the landlord just stops paying the tax entirely, but taking your rent, the building gets sold, and you don't get to renew the lease because they're going to knock it down and build luxury condos).

[arcticbull]

That requires getting a different job, my friend. Vendor lock-in with housing is real.

[bluGill]

In Singapore and a few other places. However in the US housing is not a government monopoly (sometimes low income housing is). You can always find a landlord in a different town. No need for a new job as you still live in the same metropolitan area.

[arcticbull]

Ok but what if the landlord raises rent by $200, while commuting would cost me an extra $250. Or what if I move from a town with good public transit to one where I have to drive by your own admission, several towns over.

What if moving costs $1000, which is another $83 per month over a year.

[fallingknife]

No it won't. The rent will not go up until the lease is up. And at that point it still won't necessarily go up by 200 bucks because that's just not how markets work.