Not with a regular property/land tax. There’s essentially no way to game that.
My point is that adding frills to a tax (like making it progressive) usually just enables the people with the means to do so to take advantage of provisions protecting the poor. A property tax is effective because it is inherently progressive and doesn’t need to be tweaked much.
It’s not “inherently progressive”. The rate is flat and therefore not progressive in the technical sense, though the result can appear progressive. Property value sometimes correlates with income, so the total amount paid may scale with the ability to pay, even if the rate itself does not increase.
Unlike income, where on the upper end each additional dollar goes to increased disposable income or lifestyle creep because fixed costs are already covered, housing becomes part of that lifestyle creep and scales with income. People tend to self-select into the highest tier housing they can afford. So, the tax can feel progressive even though structurally it is not.
To see that it isn’t truly progressive, consider someone buying it with accumulated wealth. The tax only increases proportionally with the property’s value; the rate itself never rises.
property tax is not inherently progressive any more than any other tax. Taxes are either flat or progressive. Not having provisions to protect the poor just fucks the poor. Of course what really protects the poor is to just have a large enough standard deduciton to not be pulling income when people are at a level where none of their income is disposable or going further and having a citizens income. Can’t be gamed because it applies equally to all. Of course part of graduated system is not to make such a jarring increase that its avoided at all cost. If each stair goes up only one percent then its hard to point to a particular step below as being better than the step above.
It’s inherently progressive because it counteracts the inherently regressive distribution of property in a capitalist economy.
Taxed are not either flat or progressive. They are flat, proportional, or progressive. This is a proportional tax which targets unequal distribution to achieve progressive results.
If you mess with the rate, the system will be more easily exploited by the ultra-rich.
Taxes are either regressive, proportional, or progressive; flat and progressive are the same thing. While some (many?) consider proportional to be a separate category, I would argue that it’s inherently regressive, as any fixed percentage is going to come disproportionately from non-disposable income for any lower income individuals. Sales taxes are considered regressive because of this and they are a flat rate for most purchases.
You can make the argument that people have to buy stuff to exist, but they don’t have to purchase a home, but given the alternative is renting which impacts lower income people even worse, this seems like a specious argument.
Even with property tax, insurance, repairs, and mortgage, I’m paying less per month than people renting much smaller apartments in my area. Thats neither fair nor right.
Not with a regular property/land tax. There’s essentially no way to game that.
My point is that adding frills to a tax (like making it progressive) usually just enables the people with the means to do so to take advantage of provisions protecting the poor. A property tax is effective because it is inherently progressive and doesn’t need to be tweaked much.
It’s not “inherently progressive”. The rate is flat and therefore not progressive in the technical sense, though the result can appear progressive. Property value sometimes correlates with income, so the total amount paid may scale with the ability to pay, even if the rate itself does not increase.
Unlike income, where on the upper end each additional dollar goes to increased disposable income or lifestyle creep because fixed costs are already covered, housing becomes part of that lifestyle creep and scales with income. People tend to self-select into the highest tier housing they can afford. So, the tax can feel progressive even though structurally it is not.
To see that it isn’t truly progressive, consider someone buying it with accumulated wealth. The tax only increases proportionally with the property’s value; the rate itself never rises.
property tax is not inherently progressive any more than any other tax. Taxes are either flat or progressive. Not having provisions to protect the poor just fucks the poor. Of course what really protects the poor is to just have a large enough standard deduciton to not be pulling income when people are at a level where none of their income is disposable or going further and having a citizens income. Can’t be gamed because it applies equally to all. Of course part of graduated system is not to make such a jarring increase that its avoided at all cost. If each stair goes up only one percent then its hard to point to a particular step below as being better than the step above.
It’s inherently progressive because it counteracts the inherently regressive distribution of property in a capitalist economy.
Taxed are not either flat or progressive. They are flat, proportional, or progressive. This is a proportional tax which targets unequal distribution to achieve progressive results.
If you mess with the rate, the system will be more easily exploited by the ultra-rich.
Taxes are either regressive, proportional, or progressive; flat and progressive are the same thing. While some (many?) consider proportional to be a separate category, I would argue that it’s inherently regressive, as any fixed percentage is going to come disproportionately from non-disposable income for any lower income individuals. Sales taxes are considered regressive because of this and they are a flat rate for most purchases.
You can make the argument that people have to buy stuff to exist, but they don’t have to purchase a home, but given the alternative is renting which impacts lower income people even worse, this seems like a specious argument.
Even with property tax, insurance, repairs, and mortgage, I’m paying less per month than people renting much smaller apartments in my area. Thats neither fair nor right.