Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Property Tax and the Fortunes of Older Industrial Cities
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ^ | January 2008 | Barry Bluestone and Chase M. Billingham

Posted on 12/28/2007 1:43:10 PM PST by Lorianne

Most people are not particularly fond of paying taxes of any sort, but the discontent with one particular type of public levy, the local property tax, is gaining momentum across the country. Disgruntled homeowners are demanding that governors and mayors find alternative methods to raise revenue in order to relieve their own property tax burden.

Decades ago this discontent led to such tax limitation measures as Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts. More recently, this movement has been driven by sharply rising property tax levies in many cities and suburbs as a result of the extraordinary appreciation in property values over the past few years. The high visibility of the property tax, which in contrast to sales and income taxes is often paid annually in one or two large installments, makes this form of revenue generation an attractive target for taxpayer antipathy.

(Excerpt) Read more at lincolninst.edu ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: taxes
PDF download availabe at site.
1 posted on 12/28/2007 1:43:12 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

User the username “username” and the password “password”.


2 posted on 12/28/2007 1:48:17 PM PST by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Property taxes are, by far, the most unamerican of taxes. Supposedly, in this country, you can live on your own property. And so you can, as long as the local government gets its protection money every year. So really, you don’t own the property. The government permits you to live on it.


3 posted on 12/28/2007 1:49:47 PM PST by JamesP81 ("I am against "zero tolerance" policies. It is a crutch for idiots." --FReeper Tenacious 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I’m sorry

“Extraordinary appreciation in property values over the past few years. “ does not cause taxes to rise, spending increases cause taxes to rise.


4 posted on 12/28/2007 1:50:25 PM PST by UB355 (Slower traffic keep right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
What do you think will happen to property valuations, and the resulting tax rates if we adopt the "smart growth" agenda?

If we restrict the available real estate that can be occupied, what happens to the price of that property and the resulting valuation and taxes?

5 posted on 12/28/2007 1:57:28 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I was raised in this house and property taxes never amounted to much to worry over. When I inherited it, taxes were equal to about 2 weeks pay. Today, same house and same job, taxes are equal to about 2 MONTHS pay. We may not be able to live here any longer. I’ve had to close out savings accounts for the past 3-4 years just to pay the taxes and now there’s nothing left.


6 posted on 12/28/2007 2:04:53 PM PST by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

In reading this article, it comes to two conclusions that can be summarized as follows: (1) state governments need to provide tax welfare for cities so they don’t have to rely on property taxes so much, and, (2) cities need the ability to levy local income taxes.

Or to summarize further: this was 6 pages of pure leftist swill. Don’t waste your time or the bandwidth to read it.


7 posted on 12/28/2007 2:13:37 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Thanks for the summary.


8 posted on 12/28/2007 2:23:29 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Thanks! Portland, OR has taken up both those measures. The state makes up school funding to “underfunded districts” which is the bizzare effect of persons living in very moderate income rural districts sending money to the much richer Portland area. And, that not being enough to pay off the unending demands (now law!) of the teachers and public employees unions, have a special 2% tax for Multnomah County (ie: city of Portland) residents.


9 posted on 12/28/2007 2:25:22 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

I would agree with that summary. State income tax


10 posted on 12/28/2007 2:59:15 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

If it were a matter of property OR income tax and not both, it might not make that much of a difference. However, that’s not what’s being proposed.


11 posted on 12/28/2007 3:01:03 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
If it were a matter of property OR income tax and not both, it might not make that much of a difference. However, that’s not what’s being proposed.

I believe what's being proposed, combinded with "smart growth" policies will be the end of the average person being able to own their own property.

Cities just suck.

12 posted on 12/28/2007 3:04:26 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I think it comes down to growth. By way of example, I live in Pennsylvania. Growth in many areas is negative, so the tax base is shrinking. However the population is aging, and requires a greater amount of government spending. So the government raises taxes on the remaining citizens, driving them off, rinse and repeat.

When I lived in Virginia the area was growing. Our taxes were low, which attracted new residents, thus enabling the tax rate to remain the same.

13 posted on 12/28/2007 3:07:35 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Whaddya mean? If your house is assessed at a higher value, your property taxes do go up.

Of course, if there is extra $$ left over the town will spend it.


14 posted on 12/28/2007 3:16:33 PM PST by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I think it comes down to growth. By way of example, I live in Pennsylvania. Growth in many areas is negative, so the tax base is shrinking. However the population is aging, and requires a greater amount of government spending. So the government raises taxes on the remaining citizens, driving them off, rinse and repeat.

That seems to be the cycle. The "smart growth" plan seems to be calculated to extract the largest amount of tax money from the smallest geographical tax base. This maximizes the tax base and minimizes the cost of providing services to the municipality. Sometimes it appears they're trying to keep the tax base from leaving by making it impossible to move far enough away to escape the taxes, and still live close enough to commute.

15 posted on 12/28/2007 3:17:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson