How Taxes Drive Down Home Values (What state and local officials can do to help housing market)

National Review ^ | 12/01/2011 | Nicole Gelinas

[Cowman]

Fire and police protection, however, are less of a “per use” kind of concept. But even today, we have renters who live under the protection of police and fire control without directly paying for it in the form of property taxes. Sales tax would be the way to cover that. If implemented, the cost of the property tax for the owner of the property would not be passed on to the renter, and would make up for the increase in sales tax.

Both could be paid by an annual fee which takes the budget of each department and dividing by the population. As long as each resident gets the same fire bill and police bill and has a say in how the budgets are made I have no problem. (actually there probably should be an opt out mechanism as well just in case the police chief goes nuts and supports SEIU or something)

[Atlas Sneezed]

“No Taxation Without Representation”

---

Another injustice in levying property taxes to collect revenues for things that don’t directly benefit the property (like maintaining a network of roads that enable access to the property) is that property doesn’t vote. Or rather, it’s owners don’t necessarily reside in the area.

Property taxes should be at most a collective decision by property owners, whether or not they reside in the jurisdiction. And the representation should be proportional to the property value, or to the proposed assessment being voted on.

[MrB]

Your idea of the source of the funding is OK,
but you simply have to address the government’s recourse for non-payment of this tax.

If it’s confiscation of property, then we’re back to the original problem.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Fire and police protection, however, are less of a “per use” kind of concept.

---

Putting aside police, fire protection is a perfect example of something that MIGHT be well connected to property ownership, because it is about protecting the property value from fire risk.

Fire is also a perfect example of something that MIGHT be handled by government, because it is best collectivized by the whole community, without competing agencies. Also because an unstopped fire on one property not subscribing to insurance can endanger other properties.

However, fire protection is actually a perfect example of something that can be privatized. A homeowner’s main cost of fire protection is paid to their insurance company (compare your insurance bill to your property tax bill, and look at the fire components of each). Where there is bad or no fire protection, then insurance premiums are higher.

So why not let the insurance companies contract with a private agency to provide fire protection for a community, and let the effectiveness of the protection meet their standards (instead of absurd government union affirmative action standards)? All cost would be paid by the insured, and those who go without insurance would not get protection, except as needed to protect nearby insured properties.

There might even be a legal mandate to have minimal (spread protection as opposed to property preservation) fire insurance, just as we have mandated auto liability insurance.

[Oatka]

garbage disposal, user fees (duh!)

An interesting story out of rural Arizona. We had user fees of $20 monthly from a local garbage disposal company. It went out of business. A new outfit took over but refused to send it's trucks down gravel roads (about half our community).

Enter small-scale free enterprise. Some guy, on a paved road, set up a site where he could have three dumpsters. Charged $7 for a pickup load, $1 for a green bagful. When the dumpster is full, the company's garbage truck picks them up. (Saves us about $14 a month, since we have a burn barrel.)

Granted it wouldn't work in heavily-populated areas, but it shows what can be done.