Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

cuomo to cut property taxes...again

Expand Messages
  • ssbaker305
    With friends like this, who needs enemies:
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 11, 2013
      With friends like this, who needs enemies: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/nyregion/cuomo-backs-plan-to-freeze-homeowner-tax-outside-new-york-city.html?pagewanted=1&src=recg Cuomo's plan will Proposition 13 New York, which will sink to the bottom of the living standard pile, just like California did.
    • k_r_johansen
      As they say; Another day, another reckless throw of the dice. I used to be able to be amused by politicians and the economical elite´s sorry excuses for
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 11, 2013
        As they say; Another day, another reckless throw of the dice. I used to be able to be amused by politicians and the economical elite´s sorry excuses for public policy, but it´s not even slightly funny any more.

        Kj
      • walterhorn
        So discouraging. W
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 11, 2013
          So discouraging.

          W
        • David Reed
          But split rate taxers like Allana s Earth Rights Institute and Wealth and Want campaign on reducing property taxes : Earth s Rights In Pennsylvania 85% of
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 11, 2013
            But split rate taxers like Allana's Earth Rights Institute and Wealth and Want campaign on reducing property taxes : Earth's Rights "In Pennsylvania 85% of homeowners pay less with this "(split rate)"policy then they do with the traditional flat-rate approach" ; W&W "Taxes on the majority of owner-occupied and rental homes were reduced"( with Pa split rate ).
            It might be more honest to campaign for keeping the total tax rate the same while increasing the land proportion and decreasing the buidings' or  simply go for the Texan tax model of having no local income or corporate taxes but a  make-no-bones-about it stonking property tax .Seems to work. 
             

            To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
            From: calhorn@...
            Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:59:02 -0800
            Subject: [LandCafe] RE: cuomo to cut property taxes...again

             
            So discouraging.

            W
          • walterhorn
            All those would be fine (and not discouraging). And there s no problem with the property taxes of 85% of the populace going down either: it s just that the
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 11, 2013

              All those would be fine (and not discouraging).  And there's no problem with the property taxes of 85% of the populace going down either: it's just that the reduction has got to be a function of lower rates on improvements (only), and, I think, the other 15% need to get a good spanking. 


              Sadly, Cuomo's endorsement is for no such proposals as those....

            • David Reed
              @C Your heart is obviously in the right place but it all depends in the American context whether the land values are bigger than the value of construction on
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 13, 2013
                @C
                Your heart is  obviously in the right place but it all depends in the American context whether the land values  are bigger than the value of construction on it.There appear to be a lot of places in the US where really expensive houses (what Brits would call mansions) sit on cheap land so land taxers would give these rich owners a tax cut, whereas the flat rate (ie not split) property tax would tax the conspicuous consumption or wealth elements.
                As I have said before : I am not sure the US needs LVT- not nearly as much as England anyway where in London a £1million house will comprise only £200,000 for the bricks and mortar and four times as much for the land..Interestingly a blogger on the YPP website (Young People's Party - a LVT front organisation) came up with the maxim that any house being sold for more than its construction or rebuild value is an example of market failure. Worth taking on board.
                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                From: calhorn@...
                Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:26:06 -0800
                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] RE: cuomo to cut property taxes...again

                 

                All those would be fine (and not discouraging).  And there's no problem with the property taxes of 85% of the populace going down either: it's just that the reduction has got to be a function of lower rates on improvements (only), and, I think, the other 15% need to get a good spanking. 


                Sadly, Cuomo's endorsement is for no such proposals as those....


              • Roy Langston
                On Friday, December 13, 2013 1:03 AM, David Reed wrote:   ... There are areas in almost every country where the improvements are worth
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 13, 2013
                  On Friday, December 13, 2013 1:03 AM, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                   

                  > Your heart is  obviously in the right place but it all depends in the American context whether the land values  are bigger than the value of construction on it.

                  There are areas in almost every country where the improvements are worth more than the land.  There just tend to be more of them in larger countries with lower population density.

                  > There appear to be a lot of places in the US where really expensive houses (what Brits would call mansions) sit on cheap land so land taxers would give these rich owners a tax cut,

                  That's a misapprehension.  McMansions are not for the rich.  They are for middle class people who want to live in houses that make them look and feel richer than they are -- but that actually MAKE them poorer, because the land is not appreciating fast enough to overcome the depreciation of the improvements.  The real rich live in mansions on land that IS valuable, in location and/or quantity, and hence increasing in value fast enough to more than cancel out the depreciation of the improvements.

                  > whereas the flat rate (ie not split) property tax would tax the conspicuous consumption or wealth elements.

                  Which is just horribly bad policy.  All serious students of taxation economics are agreed that taxing consumption, conspicuous or otherwise, is a foolish and destructive idea, because it inevitably also taxes production, and thus producers.  It is also an attempt to repeal by fiat the fundamental truth of all economic activity, which is that it is always undertaken to ENABLE consumption.

                  Taxing people just for being wealthy is always going to be a bad and stupid policy, as well as an indefensible one, because it ignores the "beneficiary pay" principle, and also just reeks of envy.  Taxing people just for consuming more than one considers decorous is likewise always going to be a bad and stupid policy because it discourages and punishes wealth production, and also just reeks of the kind of censorious religious puritanism that gave us sumptuary laws.

                  > As I have said before : I am not sure the US needs LVT- not nearly as much as England anyway

                  It's true that a densely populated, quasi-feudal country where land rent is a large fraction of GDP and a tiny fraction of the population owns almost all the land is a sicker patient than a more sparsely populated one where land rent devours less of production and landownership is more broadly distributed.  But that doesn't mean the latter patient is not also sick.

                  -- Roy Langston


                • David Reed
                  RL wastes his own time and ours basically agreeing with what s been said with the exception of his serious doubts about a wealth tax element in property tax.
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 14, 2013
                     RL wastes his own time and ours basically agreeing with what's been said with the exception of his serious doubts about  a wealth tax element in property tax.
                    As the British comedian Tommy Cooper said in real life when short changed buying drinks" Its not the principle of the thing: its the money." I would have thought any money you could get out of property owners qua property owners would be better than the same revenue being gouged out of workers and small businesses.
                    But then again RL's main aim is to crush and humiliate anyone who dares to disagree with  him.

                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    From: roy_langston@...
                    Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:16:58 -0800
                    Subject: Re: [LandCafe] RE: cuomo to cut property taxes...again

                     
                    On Friday, December 13, 2013 1:03 AM, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                     

                    > Your heart is  obviously in the right place but it all depends in the American context whether the land values  are bigger than the value of construction on it.

                    There are areas in almost every country where the improvements are worth more than the land.  There just tend to be more of them in larger countries with lower population density.

                    > There appear to be a lot of places in the US where really expensive houses (what Brits would call mansions) sit on cheap land so land taxers would give these rich owners a tax cut,

                    That's a misapprehension.  McMansions are not for the rich.  They are for middle class people who want to live in houses that make them look and feel richer than they are -- but that actually MAKE them poorer, because the land is not appreciating fast enough to overcome the depreciation of the improvements.  The real rich live in mansions on land that IS valuable, in location and/or quantity, and hence increasing in value fast enough to more than cancel out the depreciation of the improvements.

                    > whereas the flat rate (ie not split) property tax would tax the conspicuous consumption or wealth elements.

                    Which is just horribly bad policy.  All serious students of taxation economics are agreed that taxing consumption, conspicuous or otherwise, is a foolish and destructive idea, because it inevitably also taxes production, and thus producers.  It is also an attempt to repeal by fiat the fundamental truth of all economic activity, which is that it is always undertaken to ENABLE consumption.

                    Taxing people just for being wealthy is always going to be a bad and stupid policy, as well as an indefensible one, because it ignores the "beneficiary pay" principle, and also just reeks of envy.  Taxing people just for consuming more than one considers decorous is likewise always going to be a bad and stupid policy because it discourages and punishes wealth production, and also just reeks of the kind of censorious religious puritanism that gave us sumptuary laws.

                    > As I have said before : I am not sure the US needs LVT- not nearly as much as England anyway

                    It's true that a densely populated, quasi-feudal country where land rent is a large fraction of GDP and a tiny fraction of the population owns almost all the land is a sicker patient than a more sparsely populated one where land rent devours less of production and landownership is more broadly distributed.  But that doesn't mean the latter patient is not also sick.

                    -- Roy Langston



                  • walterhorn
                    Ah, David and Roy, I have had my differences (sometimes quite unpleasant) with both of you two, and, IMHO, this has often been a result of the resistance each
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 14, 2013

                      Ah, David and Roy, I have had my differences (sometimes quite unpleasant) with both of you two, and, IMHO, this has often been a result of the resistance each of you has to ever admitting any error in your views (even itsy-bitsy stuff). But it's also my sincere opinion that you're both awesome.


                      I'm not a youthful schoolgirl (I'm male and on the shit side of 60), but I somehow feel the need to tell you both (approaching yuletide? more quickly approaching senility? bad eggs this morning?) that I continue to learn a lot from each of your posts.  


                      With respect to Roy's last go, I don't think it actually exhibits a "main aim" of humiliation (tho, admittedly, that characteristic sometimes shows up as subsidiary goal in his posts). He makes here what I take to be several good (and eloquently put) points about the inherent dangers of a subtle shift from taxing privilege to taking money wherever we may find it in abundance. You (and I think Ed Dodson too) have indicated that where LVT can't get a foothold, it may be important to use a proxy that will grab cash for essential community services.  It's important to recognize the downside of doing that--even if, in the end, we are forced to that recourse.


                      Anyhow, I wouldn't take these differences so personally.  Both of your voices are clarion calls that need to be heard.


                      Best,


                      W

                    • k_r_johansen
                      Sobering input as always W. If I could make some other point about Detroit and property taxes in general without resorting to hubris: 1. AFAIU, taxes on the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 14, 2013
                        Sobering input as always W.
                        If I could make some other point about Detroit and property taxes in general without resorting to hubris:
                        1. AFAIU, taxes on the "give-away" properties in certain areas of Detroit, are very high in proportion to assessed value (source, different articles, including this: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/07/detroit-taxes-and-the-laffer-curve.html), and there´s a very high delinquincy rate.
                        2. A search on Zillow, reveals that downtown plus an area to the north, seem to have properties that still have a decent value in relation to improvements. It also shows that it has a certain amount of lots, both in downtown and other preferrable locations, with a significant (non "bargain" value). I think the data on taxes on properties are so and so on zillow, so I can´t make a firm statement that the taxes on built properties are quite high, and on lots, very low. But I suspect that this is the fact. In addition to the properties here, aerial maps certainly show that there is land available in downtown areas, which are not necessarily listed, that are classical speculative properties (+ underutilized land).
                        3. On a per-property basis, I know we´ve discussed this before, I think conventional property taxes generally take from the land-element first, whatever the assessment base is, the negative effect is on redistribution from improvement value to speculative value, between properties.
                        4. 1 and 2 suggests that even though a lot of areas seems to be comprised of properties that are valued far less than their improvements, the city still seems to exhibit the problems of taxation of "real" wealth, i.e. buildings, shown by the existence of speculative vacancies in better areas, and highly taxed, low value properties in other areas, and that Detroit would indeed gain from moving as much tax as it can from the latter to the former. Whether it can get all it´s revenue this way is a whole different point, it can probably not, and David´s point is fair enough. But it´s no excuse for not making the incentives better in the existing system to encourage growth.

                        Happy holidays.
                        Kj
                      • roy_langston
                        ... Property owners often ARE workers and small businesses, and taxing them for contributing to the wealth of the community -- which improvement value measures
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 14, 2013

                          ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <dbcreed@...> wrote:


                          > I would have thought any money you could get out of property owners qua property owners would be better than the same revenue being gouged out of workers and small businesses.

                          Property owners often ARE workers and small businesses, and taxing them for contributing to the wealth of the community -- which improvement value measures -- is foolish and destructive.  It is also unjust and creates a perverse incentive, as Detroit has proved so very thoroughly.

                          > But then again RL's main aim is to crush and humiliate anyone who dares to disagree with  him.

                          Many people have to experience actual emotional suffering before they can learn.  I don't mind providing that enhanced learning stimulus.

                          -- Roy Langston
                        • roy_langston
                          ... 1. AFAIU, taxes on the give-away properties in certain areas of Detroit, are very high in proportion to assessed value (source, different articles,
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 14, 2013

                            ---In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:


                            > If I could make some other point about Detroit and property taxes in general without resorting to hubris:
                            1. AFAIU, taxes on the "give-away" properties in certain areas of Detroit, are very high in proportion to assessed value (source, different articles, including this: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/07/detroit-taxes-and-the-laffer-curve.html), and there´s a very high delinquincy rate.

                            The lesson of Detroit is that because property taxes are actually two opposite taxes, a high property tax rate on low-value land is just as bad for being too high as a low property tax rate on high-value land is for being too low (<cough> California<cough>).

                            -- Roy Langston
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.