A proposal to reform property taxes:

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

1. Establish uniform procedures that will be applied in each state to determine the taxable value of all real property in the state that is not completely exempt from taxation and calculate the total taxable value of all real property in each state.
2. All corporations and all individual persons who have taxable real property in a state will pay taxes on the property according the formula {[a/b]/1000}{y}{z}} where a = the total taxable value of the taxpayer’s real estate; b = the total taxable value of all real estate in the state and y = the taxation coefficient established by the taxation authority which shall be uniform for all taxpayers and z is an ownership coefficient that shall be applied whenever the taxpayer is not a resident or does not maintain a corporate headquarters within the jurisdiction of the taxation authority.

Duncan J Macdonald · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
1. Establish uniform procedures that will be applied in each state to determine the taxable value of all real property in the state that is not completely exempt from taxation and calculate the total taxable value of all real property in each state.
2. All corporations and all individual persons who have taxable real property in a state will pay taxes on the property according the formula {[a/b]/1000}{y}{z}} where a = the total taxable value of the taxpayer’s real estate; b = the total taxable value of all real estate in the state and y = the taxation coefficient established by the taxation authority which shall be uniform for all taxpayers and z is an ownership coefficient that shall be applied whenever the taxpayer is not a resident or does not maintain a corporate headquarters within the jurisdiction of the taxation authority.

The rub here is trying to determine the uniform procedures. So, does a square foot of tundra in Alaska equal a square foot of Times Square? Are you saying that Alaska is intrinsically worth three times Texas? Is Federally owned land included?

Those are just a few questions.

cornflake · Aug 22, 2017

What about school costs? One state may have very low costs, one high, is that just too damn bad?

Also, jumping off the hamster, the uniform for all taxpayers in a state? For the country? In a state is bad enough, as the Loop in Chicago is a wee bit more pricey than farmland in Illinois, but Wyoming vs. San Francisco?

Xelebes · Aug 22, 2017

What are the objectives behind this tax reform?

Myrealana · Aug 22, 2017

No.

I'm pretty sure I prefer property taxes to stay at the local level, thank you.

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

Duncan J Macdonald said:
The rub here is trying to determine the uniform procedures. So, does a square foot of tundra in Alaska equal a square foot of Times Square? Are you saying that Alaska is intrinsically worth three times Texas? Is Federally owned land included?

Those are just a few questions.

Property values wouldn't have to be equalized between the states. But I want a standardized set of procedures for evaluating property that every county in a given state must follow. Where I live the county's property appraiser raises and lowers property values from one year to the next pretty much at his personal whim based on how much the government is spending. About 20 years ago we had a mayor who bragged that millage rates didn't go up while he was in office. But, at the same time the property appraiser doubled and tripled the value of everybody's taxable property so taxes went up anyway.

cornflake · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
Property values wouldn't have to be equalized between the states. But I want a standardized set of procedures for evaluating property that every county in a given state must follow. Where I live the county's property appraiser raises and lowers property values from one year to the next pretty much at his personal whim based on how much the government is spending. About 20 years ago we had a mayor who bragged that millage rates didn't go up while he was in office. But, at the same time the property appraiser doubled and tripled the value of everybody's taxable property so taxes went up anyway.

By definition, that's not at his personal whim.

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

Xelebes said:
What are the objectives behind this tax reform?

To make all taxpayers pay in proportion to their share of their state's taxable property. I want to stop sweetheart deals for big companies, and I don't want people who own valuable property to carry a greater share of the tax burden simply because they can afford to do so. And I want to discourage property ownership by absentee landlords.

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

Myrealana said:
No.

I'm pretty sure I prefer property taxes to stay at the local level, thank you.

In Florida we pay property taxes at the state and local level. We even have independent government entities like school boards and transportation authorities that can levy property taxes.

James D. Macdonald · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
In Florida we pay property taxes at the state and local level. We even have independent government entities like school boards and transportation authorities that can levy property taxes.

And what's wrong with that? What problems does this proposal solve?

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

cornflake said:
By definition, that's not at his personal whim.

When taxable value can swing by thousands of dollars from one year to the next, the amount is at the appraiser's whim.

cornflake · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
To make all taxpayers pay in proportion to their share of their state's taxable property.

I want to stop sweetheart deals for big companies, Why? Do big companies coming to states not bring benefits like jobs, spending, etc. that offset tax breaks in many cases?

and I don't want people who own valuable property to carry a greater share of the tax burden simply because they can afford to do so. Why not?

And I want to discourage property ownership by absentee landlords. Why? How are you defining absentee anyway? Also, who cares?

..

James D. Macdonald · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
When taxable value can swing by thousands of dollars from one year to the next, the amount is at the appraiser's whim.

But isn't it true that property values can, and do, swing by thousands of dollars from year to year?

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

James D. Macdonald said:
And what's wrong with that? What problems does this proposal solve?

It would keep more tax money at the local level. I live under a multi-county transportation authority so my tax money goes for roads and transportation projects in other counties.

cbenoi1 · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
y = the taxation coefficient established by the taxation authority which shall be uniform for all taxpayers.

Same as in the other thread. It boils down to some authority determining indirectly the taxation rate. Might as well let the "taxation authority" determine the taxation rate directly. Why all the mumbo-jumbo convoluted math?

-cb

Twick · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
When taxable value can swing by thousands of dollars from one year to the next, the amount is at the appraiser's whim.

Your solution would be to hamstring the local government's ability to raise revenue. If they need money, it has to come from somewhere.

James D. Macdonald · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
It would keep more tax money at the local level. I live under a multi-county transportation authority so my tax money goes for roads and transportation projects in other counties.

Again, what's wrong with that?

Twick · Aug 22, 2017

cbenoi1 said:
Same as in the other thread. It boils down to some authority determining indirectly the taxation rate. Might as well let the "taxation authority" determine the taxation rate directly. Why all the mumbo-jumbo convoluted math?

-cb

Because I think Duncan believes this would save him, personally, tax.

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

cornflake said:
..

Why? Do big companies coming to states not bring benefits like jobs, spending, etc. that offset tax breaks in many cases?[/quote]

Not always in proportion to the tax breaks they get. Let a Walmart open and you instantly have extra transportation problems due to an increase in traffic, but if Walmart isn't paying property taxes, the government has to take revenue from somewhere else to deal with the traffic.

and I don't want people who own valuable property to carry a greater share of the tax burden simply because they can afford to do so. Why not?

Because that's the first rung on the ladder to socialism.

And I want to discourage property ownership by absentee landlords. Why? How are you defining absentee anyway? Also, who cares?

McDonald's is the biggest land owner in the U.S. So when it comes to lobbying a city or county's government whom do you think the politicians are going to pay more attention to?

- - - Updated - - -

James D. Macdonald said:
But isn't it true that property values can, and do, swing by thousands of dollars from year to year?

No.

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

Twick said:
Your solution would be to hamstring the local government's ability to raise revenue. If they need money, it has to come from somewhere.

Waste money, you mean. When the real estate market collapsed public libraries were being shut down and cops were being laid off, but we were still paying taxes to support an NFL team. Hamstring the ability to collect taxes and the government has to change its priorities.

Twick · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
Waste money, you mean. When the real estate market collapsed public libraries were being shut down and cops were being laid off, but we were still paying taxes to support an NFL team. Hamstring the ability to collect taxes and the government has to change its priorities.

But, um, they didn't. In your example, they cut back on services but supported an NFL team. This shows that this particular government was willing to prioritize the team over services. Your system would not change that.

What WOULD change it, of course, is voting for local governments whose spending priorities match your own. Unless, of course, more people have a different priority (NFL teams not only engender civic pride but generate a fair bit of income for a city). This is called democracy.

Myrealana · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
In Florida we pay property taxes at the state and local level. We even have independent government entities like school boards and transportation authorities that can levy property taxes.

So do I.

I still prefer local control over federal control of property taxes and related spending. The needs and means of Floridians are better handled locally than making broad-sweeping changed nationally because you're pissed at your personal situation.

If you need to make a change, get out and campaign for it in your local district. I promise you, it's far easier to change things close to home than it is to wrap the whole country up into your version of perfect taxation.

James D. Macdonald · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
Because that's the first rung on the ladder to socialism.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Xelebes · Aug 22, 2017

DuncanClinch said:
To make all taxpayers pay in proportion to their share of their state's taxable property.

Already being accomplished by the current system. The current system is based off of the deeds apportioned, and some deeds are indeed more expensive than others. This is determined by the expected yield of those deeds.

I want to stop sweetheart deals for big companies, and I don't want people who own valuable property to carry a greater share of the tax burden simply because they can afford to do so. And I want to discourage property ownership by absentee landlords.

How does your proposal achieve any of these three goals?

DuncanClinch · Aug 22, 2017

Twick said:
But, um, they didn't. In your example, they cut back on services but supported an NFL team. This shows that this particular government was willing to prioritize the team over services. Your system would not change that.

It would restrict government revenue and once government services to taxpayers are cut enough the taxpayers will get up in arms enough to make the government change its priorities.

[quote[What WOULD change it, of course, is voting for local governments whose spending priorities match your own.[/quote]

What do you do when none exist? Rank and file citizens here did not want this NFL team, but local businesses bought up enough tickets to convince the NFL that the team would be supported. But, these businesses couldn't even give away all of the tickets they bought. And now 20 years and a new stadium after the fact local businesses aren't willing to support the team, but the team is still harassing city hall for more money.

A proposal to reform property taxes:

DuncanClinch

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave

DuncanClinch

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

DuncanClinch

DuncanClinch

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

DuncanClinch

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

DuncanClinch

cbenoi1

Twick

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

Twick

DuncanClinch

DuncanClinch

Twick

Myrealana

I aim to misbehave

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

DuncanClinch