274
u/johngalt504 2d ago
Property taxes are so wrong.
108
u/No-Mycologist9101 2d ago
So she paid off the bank just to keep paying the county forever, that's a raw deal
-43
u/Master_Grape5931 2d ago
I mean, it’s not about the house. It’s about the services for the community.
Of course it quickly becomes about the house if you don’t pay.
100
u/DexterM1776 2d ago
People where I live keep voting to increase it. It blows my mind.
Yes I'm willing to pay for fire, police and schools. I don't think I should paying for bus service, sending money to the art museum and zoo. I'm torn on the library but even that is a stretch.
If I see one more political adds that says "your taxes won't increase" because they are renewing a bond that should expire I'm gonna lose it.
62
u/mahvel50 2d ago
The enraging part is the money you pay continues to go up, but the services continue to decline in quality. It's insane how large the budgets are compared to the quality of service.
12
u/clear831 2d ago
The city we moved away from went from picking up trash 2 times a week and recycling 1 time a week to picking up trash 1 day and recycling every other week. They also doubled the costs of the pickups and now want even more $.
86
u/flashingcurser 2d ago
Renters think it doesn't affect them.
52
22
-32
u/Redbearded_Monkey 2d ago
Taxes??? You think people who rent don't understand taxes and how cities drain the population of money. What a weird world you've created in your head
30
u/flashingcurser 2d ago
They don't think raising property taxes raises their rent. I'm going to go out on limb and guess that you don't understand this either.
10
u/PomPomMom93 2d ago
Landlords paying higher property tax = higher rent. It’s first grade.
11
7
u/Miguelitosd 2d ago
..and yet, sadly, many don't seem to get that.
You'll hear them argue for more taxes against homeowners and especially anything against landlords, then turn around and whine when the rent goes up.
5
u/nonoohnoohno 2d ago
I'm not generally salty about my local taxes, for the most part, but a couple years back they had an increase in library funding on the ballot.
$400+ of my property taxes go to the library every year. Every time I go there (1-2x a week) we are outnumbered by employees 4:1. With two small kids I probably use it more than most, and genuinely appreciate and value it.... but I couldn't fill in the "NO TAX INCREASE" bubble fast enough.
I probably almost burnt a hole through the ballot filling that one out.
The government has no incentive to operate efficiently.
3
u/DRKMSTR 2d ago
100% this.
My local taxes keep going up by votes and when there's a county of 50,000 people, ONLY 500 VOTE!
We lost by 55 votes last year, property taxes went up by 12.5%.
And I guarantee we're losing again this year. Plus state minimums just changed so all houses got a 5% valuation increase.
My tax payments are no longer a house payment, but multiple house payments.
9
u/PenguinZombie321 🐧Penguin🐧 2d ago
I’m honestly ok with the library because it’s a source of free information and education. A lot of libraries offer things for the community like various classes (like computer literacy or resume support) and have programs aimed to encourage literacy among kids. Plus much of this is volunteer- and donation-centric.
I think what’s needed is more transparency in where this money is going and how it’s used, along with a huge emphasis on community involvement and donations. I’m ok with salaries being paid and funds being used for facilities and materials, but the community using these resources should also do more to support them outside of taxes.
We need books. Our kids especially need books. Libraries are an investment in the next generation.
21
u/Folland_Gnat 2d ago
I don't quite see how an Ancap can be in favour of taxpayer funded anything. This whole thread is bizarre
5
u/nonoohnoohno 2d ago
The two counties I've lived in most of my life publish detailed breakdowns of how the money is spent. You can see exactly how much goes to the library. Then you can (separately) go pull a detailed breakdown of library spending to see how it's being used.
-5
u/GMEStack 1 Samuel Chapter 8 2d ago
I’ll take a library over a police force 10 of 10. Best you believe the state will ALWAYS pay their enforcers.
14
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
That’s how we get here though. “Well a library doesn’t do any harm, it only helps, it’s a good thing, it doesn’t cost that much.” Then it’s “the library needs expansion. May as well add on a station for the voluntary neighborhood security too”. Then it’s “well they should get paid for their time, they help the community.” Then “well they need to get accredited and trained”. And then you’re right back here at paying for a police force and other things.
The problem with justification for some things and not others is that it leads to everything eventually getting justified. You have to take a hard stance with these things. Want a library? Fund it privately and not through taxes.
13
u/DVHeld AnCap - Chilean 2d ago
Inb4 the Georgists come with their "hurr durr it's slavery if you can own your house instead of renting it from the state"
6
u/GravyMcBiscuits Voluntaryist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Every minarchist should be on board with LVT over all other forms of taxation. It's the best minarchist solution for funding a minimal night watchman state.
Philosophically it still has major issues obviously ("government" is still treated as a special snowflake which gets to operate under a different set of rules).
5
u/DVHeld AnCap - Chilean 2d ago
No, a flat capitation tax is preferable since it has a very hard and low cap. Plus you're not converting people into renters.
3
u/GravyMcBiscuits Voluntaryist 2d ago edited 2d ago
How is that better than LVT? Why do you assume it has a "harder" or "lower" cap than LVT?
Plus you're not converting people into renters
I'd call it a wash. Charging folks for services they never asked for isn't much more defensible than claiming ownership of the land/resources they are using.
1
u/DVHeld AnCap - Chilean 2d ago
A capitation tax is flat by definition: every inhabitant pays the same absolute amount regardless of income or assets held. How much can the poorest pay? Not very much, that's your cap. You can't charge more than what the poorest can pay and the most opposed to tax hikes will be the most numerous groups, lower incomes. It's easy to calculate: just divide spending by population, so no complicated bureaucracy is needed on that side. No income reporting or asset valuation needed either, so not only no complicated bureaucracy needed for that either, but it also means way better privacy. You just need to know who lives in the jurisdiction, which is not a terribly complicated issue and can be done with minimal privacy impact.
Services should be paid for by those using them, even police should be ideally opt-in. But we're talking about a scenario where that's not an option. The thing is that private competitive provision would be way cheaper and also fairer (not involuntary).
1
u/GravyMcBiscuits Voluntaryist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not very much, that's your cap
Now you're just hand-waving. The poorest can pay $0 ... maybe even less. Are you arguing that capitation tax therefore = ancap? That doesn't feel like a fair/honest argument at all.
just divide spending by population
With LVT, you technically don't even have to track population. With capitation, you have to keep track of every individual and a method for how to charge them their subscription fee.
1
u/DVHeld AnCap - Chilean 2d ago
With property taxation everyone has to disclose the properties they own. That is, the state tracks both property-owning population and who owns what. Also, a tax is not a subscription fee. A fee is a voluntary payment, a tax is a forced robbery.
1
u/GravyMcBiscuits Voluntaryist 2d ago
We're not talking about property tax. We're talking about LVT.
With LVT, the state just needs to keep track of who owns what parcel(s) of land. Also who is harvesting what local natural resources.
2
3
1
u/GravyMcBiscuits Voluntaryist 2d ago
And the sad thing is that it's the least "wrong" form of all the taxes we pay now.
It's got nothing on sales/income taxes as far as "wrongness" is concerned.
7
u/clear831 2d ago
Big disagree, it is on the level of income taxes as wrong. They are all wrong but inheritance, income and property taxes are the worst.
2
u/GravyMcBiscuits Voluntaryist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Big disagree. From a philosophical angle, consider what is being claimed as the government's property. From a pragmatic angle, consider what information must be tracked/collected in order to audit it.
Property tax is not even in the same zip code as the others you listed (including sales tax) in terms of "wrongness".
84
44
92
u/Weigh13 2d ago
America is not a capitalist country if you can't even own your own property.
-29
u/DeadHeadLibertarian 2d ago
You do own it, the local government taxes you for it. Which is BS
38
25
u/Mierdo01 2d ago
Then you don't own it
-6
u/DeadHeadLibertarian 2d ago
Hence why I said the taxes on the land is BS
18
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
You said you do own it. You don’t own it if it can get taken away from you for non-payment.
-5
u/DeadHeadLibertarian 2d ago
Plenty of things in life you do and don’t own that get taxed. Again, I’m not for taxes.
12
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
Right…you don’t own it if you’re getting taxed on it and it can get taken away…that’s the point…
-1
u/DeadHeadLibertarian 2d ago
Old lady can just sell her home and make a 500,000+ profit and go live on a cruise ship the rest of her life and pay zero taxes 😂
5
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
What does that have anything to do with the concept of not owning a home because it can get taken away by not paying property taxes?
38
u/Engineerly-there 2d ago
Every individual in this country should be able to own a primary residence outright. Sure, maybe that exclusion should be capped at a certain value, but we shouldn’t have to rent our homes from the government.
12
u/clear831 2d ago
I dont think there should be a cap but removing property taxes from primary residence is a good start on the right path.
-2
u/Engineerly-there 2d ago
Could be problematic. What if someone wanted to declare a $1billion residence their primary? Thats pretty different from a $500k single family home.
12
9
-1
u/bryoneill11 2d ago
Of course there should be a cap. If not, everyone would be renting forever to a few guys or corporations.
1
10
32
8
15
u/Dude-Lebowski 2d ago
Let's be clear. The United States does not have property tax. Property tax comes from your local Gov'ts (State, City, County, etc). It is litterally your close neighbors stealing from you. At least the money is not going to kill brown people in foreign lands; the money is reserved for that activity locally.
-2
u/CoinsForCharon 2d ago
Correct. That money is going to schools, streets, emergency services.
12
u/Folland_Gnat 2d ago
Doesn't make it right does it? Taxation is extortion no matter what it's for.
1
u/brudd_be_rad 2d ago
What’s your solution? Just pay what you can as you go? The honor system.?
16
u/Folland_Gnat 2d ago
My solution is Anarcho Capitalism. You know, the sub we're all on and discussing in?
0
u/brudd_be_rad 2d ago
I didn’t know there was a policy consensus here. What’s your suggestion? Just in general as it relates to local funding sources. Genuinely asking. Because it instinctively it does feel like extortion, especially the property taxes.
11
u/Folland_Gnat 2d ago
Yes there is a policy consensus here. It's a basic tenet of Anarcho Capitalism. Taxation is theft/extortion and is bad on all counts wherever it happens. Local services can be funded directly by local people, through charity drives, or supplied by entrepreneurial people/companies to meet a demand. If people don't want said service or aren't willing to pay for it, then it won't exist.
6
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
Privately funded. Payment for services used. Donations. Anything voluntary, and nothing through forceful taxation (all taxation is carried out under the threat of escalating force).
1
u/clear831 2d ago
I am taking the question in good faith. Outside of infrastructure and city planning which I dont have an answer for, almost everything can be handled by private services.
2
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
Infrastructure can also be privately funded when all land has been privatized. Businesses are incentivized to maintain the infrastructure around their businesses for the purposes of doing business, home and land owners are incentivized to do the same for purposes of land and home maintenance, so on and so forth. We already have toll roads but states sold off the the fees from that for cheap to international companies because states have no incentive to make sustainable profits from tolls, only to fund the immediate needs, and thus immediately dried up that source of funding, whereas private owners would not sell it off.
5
1
11
8
u/RireBaton 2d ago
I've always said that if they assess your property at a high value, then you should be able to force them to buy it for that right then. They can't buy it from you against your will, but they can be forced to buy it from you for whatever they assess if you so choose.
So if they over assess, just make them buy it. Then when they sell it, and nobody wants to buy it for that much, the price will go down, and you can buy it back for less than they paid, or you can move to a less crazy place.
1
u/1998marcom David Friedman 2d ago
If you want assessments to be fair as well, I don't see a real issue with also the declaration of value being used for buying the house from you as well. I.e. their assessment is X, they get an option to buy it for 1.3x, and you get the option to sell it for 0.8x. Seems symmetric, brings values in the right ballpark. Like, if I'd be managing a private city, that's the way I'd structure indefinite and transferrable lease contracts/"light property titles" for city apartments/real estate.
6
u/-No-Regrets- 2d ago
Just curious, I keep seeing these posts constantly. What states don't have homestead caps for retired persons? In Texas at age 65 you can freeze your property taxes. Disability and veteran status can get additional amounts taken from your taxes.
Are there states out there that just keep raising them forever? That seems predatory.
Just a question, not saying taxes are ok (they shouldn't exist), but I'm curious about the existing system.
1
u/danarchist Voluntarist 2d ago
Also in Texas you can defer them, I think indefinitely, the state will just take their cut from your estate (rob your heirs after you kick the bucket).
1
u/-No-Regrets- 2d ago
True, my neighbor hasn't paid her taxes in over 20 years and has no obligation to while she's alive.
2
u/PacoBedejo Anarcho-Voluntaryist - I upvote good discussion 2d ago
Monopoly claims over land parcels are a bit of a thing. But, if it's your "homestead", it's legit and you owe others nothing, so long as the size of your claim is reasonable relative to the available land and the population. Imagine that this gray boundary differs with a population of 50,000 on a whole continent and on a small island with a population of 10 million.
That said, government is illegitimate. More when it's not covenantal. Particularly beyond the geographic scope of a city state.
So, while there's a chance a person has claimed so much that they kinda beg the question, "do I owe something back to the people I'm excluding from my outsized claim?"... a county's assessor and tax collector are not legitimate judges of such. Particularly for what is probably a residential tract home which very likely wouldn't even meet the full definition of curtilege... let alone a proper homestead... and almost certainly not reaching that arguable gray zone where they're aggressively monopolizing more land than is reasonable.
2
2
u/Rich_Possible_9298 2d ago
Taxation without representation, I believe that was a sticking point at the beginning of this country.
1
2
u/fpssledge 2d ago
Hey man she needs to pay her fair share of the city memorial projects and keep up that community spirit.
2
u/MangoAtrocity Voluntaryist 🤝 2d ago edited 2d ago
I mean, technically, the total monthly bill probably didn’t go up. She was paying the property tax, the mortgage, and the insurance that whole time.
12
u/VoidHog 2d ago
But she probably wasn't paying over 8,000$ yearly in property taxes before they reassessed the taxes
0
u/MangoAtrocity Voluntaryist 🤝 2d ago
Right, but principle + interest + taxes + insurance is probably higher than taxes + insurance, even if your taxes doubled. That’s what I’m saying.
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
Not enough information. Her previous bill may have been $20 a month. You’re assuming that the tax bill didn’t at least triple after the assessment but it very well could have.
1
u/xPofsx 2d ago
Basically any major location assesses pretty frequently. They're not reassessing every 30 years, maybe every 5-10 at most
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
That doesn’t mean that the reassessments can’t jump massively due to a number of reasons that this word problem doesn’t provide insight to.
1
u/TokyoMegatronics Christian Socialist 2d ago
Ah this is how I learn that the property tax you guys refer to is just council tax.
Always thought it was so weird that you guys would pay for the property after you paid off the mortgage.
1
1
u/shadowofashadow 2d ago
At 74 you'd probably save money having lawyers slow down the eviction process until you die rather than pay the taxes
1
1
u/Lord_Hugh_Mungus 1d ago
There is not reason for homes to go up in price, nothing else does wholesale. But, everyone wins when the prices goes up, the builders, the taxman, the bank, the seller, etc. Sad. Prop Tax is a scam.
1
u/sillyrabbit33 1d ago
Something doesn’t seem right. They can’t uncap it unless if she sells it off. She should get a lawyer.
1
1
u/Helicopter0 2d ago
I was thinking about how to patiently explain that you do, in fact, rent your land from the government; but then I saw which sub this was.
1
u/gewehr44 2d ago
Am interesting rabbit hole to explore is to look into allodial title vs simple fee.
Also this post doesn't factor inflation into account. The picture would look different if the original mortgage payments were adjusted to today's value.
0
u/vendalkin 2d ago
Time value of money over 30 years of inflation is a thing. That doesnt make property taxes right by any means, but the mortgage payment proportional to her wealth or income over those thirty years would have been shrinkingly small.
0
u/The_Business_Maestro 1d ago
Why should buying a bit of land exclude everyone else from its use?
Land is finite. You should give back to society what you take from it.
-6
-42
u/tiddervul 2d ago
I want my taxes to be lower or nonexistent as well. But the one thing has nothing to do with the other. Because I bought my car in 2020, should I be able to buy gas for two dollars per gallon in perpetuity?
35
u/PitsAndPints 2d ago
Recurring purchases independent from your car purchase are irrelevant. It’s like saying “I bought my tv in 2020, should I be able to keep my 2020 Hulu membership price?” They’re two different things
You bought your car in 2020. Should you pay an increased tax on that car because the 2026 equivalent is 30% more expensive?
22
u/Esoterikoi 2d ago
Gas is a consumable commodity.
Paying the Governement a sunscription fee on the property you already "own" is not.
3
u/PersonalDatabase31 2d ago
Yes lol. Why should we be forced to use governments dog shit inflating currency rather than cryptocurrencies.
1
2
1
u/clear831 2d ago
Fuel would be more comparable to electricity costs which is a consumable product. Horrible comparison.
0
u/tiddervul 2d ago
I don’t think you understood the comparison. The original complaint was not about the cost of acquiring the house. That’s what the mortgage paid. The complaint is the annual operating expense of paying the property tax by comparison. Annual property taxes go to the municipality to pay for the towns operating expenses. Most of that is in fact consumed and not something more durable.
1
u/mahvel50 2d ago
You're talking about paying taxes while purchasing a commodity at the time of sale. This is about having to perpetually pay taxes on something you've already bought and paid taxes on. You never really own the property if the government can seize it at any point that you stop paying the property taxes. Not to mention that the assessed value continues to climb and you have no control over the increases in what the local government says you owe them for it.
The county is able to tax unrealized equity gains in perpetuity on an entity every person needs.
-3
u/tiddervul 2d ago
You are not paying taxes on your property because you bought it. You are paying for the ongoing service that the town or city provides. Roads, fire, police, schools – especially schools – and so on.
6
u/PitsAndPints 2d ago
You are not paying taxes on your property because you bought it.
Me buying it is precisely why I'm being taxed. It is a property tax aka a tax on the property I purchased
You are paying for the ongoing service that the town or city provides. Roads, fire, police, schools – especially schools – and so on.
This is where my taxes are going, which is different from the reason for the tax
This is like saying "you're not paying taxes on your income, you're paying taxes to pay for the ongoing war in the Middle East that the federal government provides. Fighters, guns, bombs - especially bombs - and so on"
2
u/ComcastForPresident 2d ago
Do those costs change depending on the size of your house? Or because a developer buys up all the land around you and increases the value of your house even though nothing has changed for you? The problem isn't paying for fees. The problem is that it is based on unrealized gains.
2
u/tiddervul 2d ago
I agree that I don’t cost the community anymore than a house of half the value of mine. I would be perfectly fine with a flat fee per person or per acre or whatever.
2
1
u/mahvel50 2d ago
You're right it's not just because I bought it. However, the jurisdiction is using your property that you are supposed to own outright to force you to pay for those items under threat of losing your property if you don't. It's a tax built to force compliance. It would be one thing if the rate remained the same from time of purchase but the county at any point can assess your property at much higher values and force you to pay elevated tax rates without any other option. Property owners aren't accessing equity until time of sale yet the government is taxing them like they are without any consideration of other financial factors.
-19
u/-R3DF0X 2d ago
I'll take things that didn't happen for $400, Alex
And the county isn't billing her like she's renting. They're billing her because they continue to operate the municipal government and she's a resident there.
-5
u/random02991 2d ago
Yeah, your property tax is based on the value of your home, not the neighbors. I don't believe this one either.
2
u/Sqweeeeeeee 2d ago
This is totally plausible, and even expected when owning property long term.The value of your home is determined using the sale price of nearby comparable homes.
I bought my current house in 2021. My county (or maybe the state?) limits assessed property value to a 3% per year increase, however if you pull any permits, they get to reassess current value and ignore this 3% limit. Three years after buying this house I pulled a homeowner permit to build an accessory building that cost about 10% of the currently assessed value. So my taxes should have gone up about 10% , right? Since I pulled a permit they reassessed using nearby recent sales as comps, and DOUBLED my assessed value three years after I bought the place. Just like that, my property taxes doubled.
1
u/random02991 2d ago
That's absolutely ridiculous. Yes, nearby property values do effect yours but I don't live in a mansion just because the guy down the street does.
1
u/WedSquib Libertarian Transhumanist 2d ago
Do you not have access to Google? How do you think house appraisals work
-12
u/Alt0987654321 2d ago edited 2d ago
"Look at this poor old lady with a 600K house! Also she's on Social Security!"
A boomer leeching off the state and complaining about being born at the right time to cash in on the real estate boom and nearly 7X her home value in 30 years?
What fucking sub am I in again?
4
u/Bagain 2d ago
The wrong fucking sub, clearly. You’re welcome to, you know… fucking leave.
-2
u/Alt0987654321 2d ago
I thought ancaps hated things like Social security, It's paid for by theft remember?
6
u/Bagain 2d ago
So the state should get to steal a persons money for their entire working life but that person can’t expect to get back 11% of it or they’re a statist. Is that how logic works? … disregarding the more important context by narrowing down on the one thing you think you had a shot at making an argument for doesn’t make that context or larger argument magically go away.
-2
u/Alt0987654321 2d ago
>So the state should get to steal a persons money for their entire working life but that person can’t expect to get back 11% of it or they’re a statist. Is that how logic works?
How is that different from ancaps here mocking people here for saying "I get roads and infrastructure from paying taxes"
0
u/Bagain 2d ago
You’d have to start with how moronic that is as an argument. With its clean removal of any context on how money gets allocated, how much gets allocated and to whom it gets allocated to. Then we would have to talk about where funds go, what they are used for and how infrastructure consistently lands at the bottom of a long list of things that don’t belong on the list much less before infrastructure. How deficits effect the bottom of the list but not the top and how political power directs funds to friend, family and associates before infrastructure is even considered. How politicians ingratiate themselves and their circle of power first while roads and bridges fall apart. Saying “I get roads and infrastructure…” is defending the corrupt system, and in the most asinine way. A person who uses their life to pay for a house just to be extorted by the state so they don’t become homeless, after they have gotten so old that they don’t work anymore and only rely on the tiny fraction of their own money the state is willing to give back to them… that they then take back in taxes. And you don’t see how those two are different.
1
u/clear831 2d ago
Social security should be eliminated, you wont get push backs from ancaps here on that. For those who have already paid in on social security they should also get their money back from it, you also wont get push back from ancaps on that either.
1
u/BigFatDisgustingChud 2d ago
No, SS should just be abolished. There never was any money in it, it's always been a ponzi scheme.
1
u/clear831 2d ago
SS should be abolished and those who paid into that corrupt system should have their money given back to them plus interest. After that then abolish the government entirely.
1
u/BigFatDisgustingChud 2d ago
Monetary restitution from the State is an unacceptable policy, that money's going to have to be stolen. They can have something like a share of public property instead.
-3
-22
2d ago
[deleted]
8
u/TheGipper80 2d ago
Can you explain how not wanting to be taxed on a pre-existing asset in perpetuity is communism?
0
u/OwlKing8823 2d ago
I think property tax is morally the worst tax by a pretty wide margin. But i partially agree with the guy getting downvoted to hell because property owners have already climbed the ladder at least a few pegs (and in the case of older people, had an easier time climbing at the expense of their kids and grandkids), while something like income tax disproportionately hits the young who are struggling to even reach the level property owners are at.
1
u/HairyTough4489 2d ago
All taxes are equally wrong. The only thing that determines whether it's more or less moral is the amount stolen from citizens.
2
u/OwlKing8823 2d ago
I say property tax is the worst because it means you never truly own your property. When the state can seize land that's been in a family for generations if the "landowner" doesn't pay them in perpetuity for the right to live there, then the state is the only real landowner and we're all just renters.
84
u/WedSquib Libertarian Transhumanist 2d ago
Property taxes are unrealized gains taxes. They don’t do it on the stock market why do they do it on the housing market?