[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.

[bluGill]

Note that it doesn't need to you personally that moves. Even people who would move anyway will force lower rents just to attract new renters. It takes longer this way but renters typically search a large area when looking for a new place and they care about their costs vs ammentities.

[bluGill]

Commuting will not cost you an extra $250 in any world I know of. You are typically only moving a biking distance here.

[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.