Paying school tax on 2nd homes?

Geoist · Dec 14, 2017

jaeger19 said:
One.. sure it does. At the end of the day.. the tax system is the same.. whether its in the suburbs or the city. In both situations.. the more you build on the property or improve it.. you get taxed more.

No, you don't. Under LVT, if I own an empty lot and its market value is $100,000, and the tax rate is 5%, then I will owe the government $5,000. If the next year I decide to build a house on that lot, increasing the market value of the site to $250,000, then I would still only owe $5,000 as 100% of the value of the house will be deducted from the tax.

As far as suburban sprawl? Sure its a continued effect of redlining. So properties that were predominately black in the cities.. were redlined. Which means that it was difficult for folks to get loans in that area.. where there was no problem in the suburbs. So as folks moved to the suburbs, the value of their homes continued to go up. Which then translated into more wealth that was passed to the next generation. Housing prices increased.., which made banks more willing to loan. Suburbs had better income taxes, which helped the local school systems.. which increased home values, and so on.
Meanwhile.. the areas that were redlined.. declined in value since you could not get a loan for a home,, the homes fell into disarray, the city areas become slums and tenement areas.. the "hood".. school declined.. violence and criminality became associated with those areas etc.

You are trying to muddy the waters of land economics. While redlining may further spur the speculation, so could population growth. Increased population or redlining does not mean the speculation does not exist. You ignore, as typical for an American, (99% sure you are American), the rest of the world. Your redlining theory cannot explain the sprawl that takes place in the rest of the world.

Thus increasing the demand for suburban development to "escape" the problems of the inner city. Developers simply followed the demand to the suburbs.

So people living 45 minutes from the city move further out, not because the house is bigger and cheaper and the taxes are lower... but because they are escaping the problems of the city? Your argument is just full of holes, my friend.

Of course it isn't just redlining.. but also our fascination with owning cars.. and the freedom of having a car.. and a lawn.. and property.. all of those things that have led to the culture of what the American dream is about.

Ah okay, let me know when you meet someone who moved from one suburb to another for "the freedom of having a car."

And its not having a "little apartment in the city". Its having that brady bunch home.. in the suburbs.

But the sprawl continues because of "inner city problems." Got it...

Um yes.. I countered your point that the reason for sprawl is because of taxation. And my points are valid.

You have provided no evidence to counter my claim. You have only provided "alternative" reasons, particularly redlining, which does not at all explain suburban sprawl and does not discredit the speculation/sprawl connection.

Especially when you consider there is no difference in the way urban property is taxed versus rural/suburb property is taxed. but you go ahead and provide the actual research from economists that show the suburban sprawl in the US is because of our property tax system. Not opinions.. but actual research. I would love to see it.

Compact development is a key component in reducing the pressure of urban sprawl. Compact development can be achieved by encouraging the development of vacant land parcels in neighborhoods where development already exists. Our objective was to determine if a land value tax would be an effective policy tool in promoting compact development in Nashville, TN. A land development model was used to evaluate the hypothesis that a land value tax increases the probability of land development in neighborhoods where development already exists relative to areas distant from preexisting development. Results show that the marginal effect of a land value tax on the probability of a vacant lot being developed in 2007 is greater for parcels in neighborhoods with preexisting development in 2006 and 2005 than for parcels in neighborhoods without preexisting development in those years. This finding suggests that land value taxation could be used to design compact development strategies to address sprawl in the Nashville area.

https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/46760/2/landtax_devlopment_nashville_1_30_09.pdf

sure I have.. you just don't want to think critically. You believe your ideology and that's that.

You think just providing an alternative theory is somehow 'disproving' another theory. That is laughable.

Geoist · Dec 14, 2017

jaeger19 said:
You realize that's fiction right?

there is no reason to believe that before 12,000 years ago people were "basically egalitarian".. Really no basis to believe that. That's a huge assumption based on little more than on observation of some current hunter gatherer cultures.

You just provided the basis for that belief. Observations of current hunter gatherer societies.

Anyways, I'll take the words of an anthropology professor over some random internet poster any day.

jaeger19 · Dec 14, 2017

Geoist said:
No, you don't. Under LVT, if I own an empty lot and its market value is $100,000, and the tax rate is 5%, then I will owe the government $5,000.
.

Ummm... nope.. what I said was correct. UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM.. If I own an empty lot in the city.. and its market value is 100,000 grand. and the rate is 5%.. then I owe the government 5,000 dollars.

IF the empty lot is in the country.. and the market value is 100,000 grand.. and the rate is 5%.. then I owe the government 5,000 dollars.

there is NO DIFFERENCE in tax system to cause people to flee from the city to the country. the tax system is the same.

YOU keep stating that the current tax system CAUSES people to flee. Yet there is no difference in tax system from urban to suburban areas.

You are trying to muddy the waters of land economics. .

Yeah no. Look.. you are getting lost in your argument. the argument is whether the current tax system causes suburban sprawl. I state it was due to cultural factors... you claim its because of the tax system. Redlining was one example of the cultural process that caused urban flight. Frankly.. having spent a lot of time in other countries.. I find that suburban sprawl seems to be less evident in most places of in Europe, and Asia. but I would hazard that any suburban sprawl in these countries is do to cultural factors as well.. and not a tax system that treats urban land and rural land exactly the same.

So people living 45 minutes from the city move further out, not because the house is bigger and cheaper and the taxes are lower... but because they are escaping the problems of the city? Your argument is just full of holes, my friend.

No. the reason they moved out of the inner city (please see what you quoted from me) was to escape the problems of the inner city. Now.. once in the suburbs? AS demand for the suburbs increases..and you get technological advances that allow people to telecommute, now you get a situation where people can parlay their house that's 45 minutes away.. and now sell that to someone escaping the city.. and then move 2 hours away and retire.. or work to supply services or goods to those that have escaped the city.

The only reason that the taxes are lower is because of supply and demand for the area.. not because of a disparity between how taxes are calculated 45 minutes away.. and 2 hours away.

Ah okay, let me know when you meet someone who moved from one suburb to another for "the freedom of having a car."

Move from the CITY to the suburbs? Sure. AND I know people that have moved from one suburb to another to have a 2 car garage instead of a car port.. or no garage at all. Heck.. I have known people that have moved to be able to have a three car garage.

But the sprawl continues because of "inner city problems." Got it...

To some degree yes. but it feeds on itself.. because as demand increases for the suburbs.. and value of the houses in a particulary suburbs increases.. this increase in home wealth can be used to purchase a bigger home somewhere else. Basically families begin trading up.

You have provided no evidence to counter my claim. You have only provided "alternative" reasons, particularly redlining, which does not at all explain suburban sprawl and does not discredit the speculation/sprawl connection.

Of course I have.. the biggest counter is the fact that there is no difference in how property taxes are handled between rural areas and urban. Its a similar tax system..

A land development model was used to evaluate the hypothesis that a land value tax increases the probability of land development in neighborhoods where development already exists relative to areas distant from preexisting development. Results show that the marginal effect of a land value tax on the probability of a vacant lot being developed in 2007 is greater for parcels in neighborhoods with preexisting development in 2006 and 2005 than for parcels in neighborhoods without preexisting development in those years. This finding suggests that land value taxation could be used to design compact development strategies to address sprawl in the Nashville area.

OR the reason could be that land that has developed property around it.. is more likely to be developed because that area is experiencing an increase in demand for housing.. and has nothing to do with tax rates.

Sorry man.. but its not a study of real world cause and effect.

You think just providing an alternative theory is somehow 'disproving' another theory. That is laughable.

And you think that your theory is correct.. no matter how many valid alternative theories exist. THAT is laughable.

jaeger19 · Dec 14, 2017

Geoist said:
You just provided the basis for that belief. Observations of current hunter gatherer societies.

Anyways, I'll take the words of an anthropology professor over some random internet poster any day.

Exactly... First.. the idea that current hunter gatherer societies are analogous to hunter gatherer societies 12000 to 40,000 years ago has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Secondly.. observation of relatively recent hunter gatherer societies shows that it depends on the society. And it depends on how you define "egalitarian". Some societies have a political equality, but yet still have social stratification based on wealth. Things like horses, or other assets.. and that leads to other social differences (like the number of wives a person could have, or number of husbands, or the status of the clan.. or who could marry whom).

Stating that hunter gatherers' were more "egalitarian".. is mostly a fanciful/romantic construct of todays perception. 30 years ago.. hunter gatherer life was scene as "short/brutish and hard".. by many of the worlds anthropologists.
The facts are that we don't know what hunter gatherer societies social stratification was. In all likelihood.. it depended on the particular society just as social stratification depends today on particular societies even though similar economic systems.

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

jonny5 said:
I dont read split quotes so Ill just stop at the first one.

Are you saying I took something you said out of context? Please point out what it is if that is the case.

There were super wealthy people before civilization. Some cavemen had many more women than others.

So a caveman with a few more women would be the pre-agriculture equivalent of a Jeff Bezos or a Carlos Slim? Sorry, but no.

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

Critter7r said:
And again I say that your plan could just as easily have the unintended consequence of INCREASING sprawl, as speculators look EVER FURTHER outside of cities so that they can find very rural land with low holding costs.

They wouldn't because as long as the tax is a high enough percent of the market value then there would be no profit in speculating.

Critter7r · Dec 19, 2017

Geoist said:
They wouldn't because as long as the tax is a high enough percent of the market value then there would be no profit in speculating.

Then who is going to own the land? The government? Because that's where land with unpaid taxes goes after the taxes go unpaid for enough years.

jonny5 · Dec 19, 2017

Geoist said:
Are you saying I took something you said out of context? Please point out what it is if that is the case.

So a caveman with a few more women would be the pre-agriculture equivalent of a Jeff Bezos or a Carlos Slim? Sorry, but no.

Sorry, not sorry?

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Ummm... nope.. what I said was correct. UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM.. If I own an empty lot in the city.. and its market value is 100,000 grand. and the rate is 5%.. then I owe the government 5,000 dollars.

IF the empty lot is in the country.. and the market value is 100,000 grand.. and the rate is 5%.. then I owe the government 5,000 dollars.

there is NO DIFFERENCE in tax system to cause people to flee from the city to the country. the tax system is the same.

Except under LVT you no longer pay taxes on your improvements, including house, so there would be less incentive to move into the country.

YOU keep stating that the current tax system CAUSES people to flee. Yet there is no difference in tax system from urban to suburban areas.

People in the city/suburbs tend to have more capital on their plot than country plots (except for, perhaps, farms). If that capital is untaxed then people would be less likely to move outward and encroach on farmers.

I find that suburban sprawl seems to be less evident in most places of in Europe, and Asia.

There is growing evidence that urban sprawl is having an increasingly negative effect on the environment and on the quality of life across Europe... According to the report, the level of sprawl increased in all European countries in the 2000s and it continues to grow. The report underlines the need for better policy measures and knowledge tools to address urban sprawl’s negative impacts.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/better-targeted-measures-needed-to

With few exceptions, cities are growing faster in size than in population. Lagos, the capital of Nigeria, is typical: it doubled in population between 1990 and 2010 but tripled in area. In short, almost all urban growth is sprawl.

https://www.economist.com/news/inte...-faster-planners-expected-great-cities-africa

and not a tax system that treats urban land and rural land exactly the same.

You are so focused on the property tax rate being the same whether it were in rural/urban settings. Urban settings have far more capital than rural settings. Untaxing that capital means smaller burden than with what we have now for city-dwellers.

Move from the CITY to the suburbs?

I said one suburb to another (as in further out from the city).

Of course I have.. the biggest counter is the fact that there is no difference in how property taxes are handled between rural areas and urban. Its a similar tax system..

What matters is what is on the property. If improvements were not taxed then you'd have fewer people and businesses looking outward and more people and businesses looking inward. You would not have 22.2 square miles of vacant land in NYC alone.

OR the reason could be that land that has developed property around it.. is more likely to be developed because that area is experiencing an increase in demand for housing.. and has nothing to do with tax rates.

Sorry man.. but its not a study of real world cause and effect.

The demand increases when the tax on improvements is lowered or eliminated. It is quite funny how a conservative is suddenly pretending that taxes have no effect on peoples' actions.

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

Critter7r said:
Then who is going to own the land? The government? Because that's where land with unpaid taxes goes after the taxes go unpaid for enough years.

Ah, the inevitable 'tax the land then it becomes the property of the government!' argument. We already tax land and its improvements. Are you saying the government owns your house? Your land? It is a silly argument because we already have taxation and we know what happens when we don't pay our taxes...

The government should not be seen as the owner of the land, but the referee. It ensures everyone plays by the rules set by society through laws.

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

jonny5 said:
Sorry, not sorry?

I see you have run out of 'arguments.' Have a pleasant day.

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Exactly... First.. the idea that current hunter gatherer societies are analogous to hunter gatherer societies 12000 to 40,000 years ago has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Because... ? If you are going to make an argument then make it and back it up.

Secondly.. observation of relatively recent hunter gatherer societies shows that it depends on the society. And it depends on how you define "egalitarian". Some societies have a political equality, but yet still have social stratification based on wealth. Things like horses, or other assets.. and that leads to other social differences (like the number of wives a person could have, or number of husbands, or the status of the clan.. or who could marry whom).

I never argued they are/were perfectly egalitarian, just more egalitarian.

Stating that hunter gatherers' were more "egalitarian".. is mostly a fanciful/romantic construct of todays perception.

You keep saying that, yet you have disproven nothing. Tell me again why I should accept your theory over an anthropologists'?

30 years ago.. hunter gatherer life was scene as "short/brutish and hard".. by many of the worlds anthropologists.

Ah, so you are pointing to people who have been wrong (whoever they are, you provided no link) as 'proof' that this professor is wrong.

So... why should I believe you over him again?

Critter7r · Dec 19, 2017

Geoist said:
Ah, the inevitable 'tax the land then it becomes the property of the government!' argument. We already tax land and its improvements. Are you saying the government owns your house? Your land? It is a silly argument because we already have taxation and we know what happens when we don't pay our taxes...

The government should not be seen as the owner of the land, but the referee. It ensures everyone plays by the rules set by society through laws.

I'm imagining a semi-rural area with some larger tracts (say 2 to 10 acres) of open land that are not being used for anything, and the change to your tax rate is going to double or triple the amount of taxes owed on these properties that are currently generating no income for their owners. So these people are going to do 1 of 3 things : develop this land (and create more sprawl), waste a lot more money sitting on a vacant property, R they're going to stop paying the increased taxes that they can't afford, in which case the property will revert back to the municipality or the county.

Geoist · Dec 19, 2017

Critter7r said:
I'm imagining a semi-rural area with some larger tracts (say 2 to 10 acres) of open land that are not being used for anything, and the change to your tax rate is going to double or triple the amount of taxes owed[/B] on these properties that are currently generating no income for their owners.

How so? If anything, it would help reduce taxes in rural areas as the effects of LVT would mean less suburban encroachment on rural land.

Critter7r · Dec 19, 2017

Geoist said:
How so? If anything, it would help reduce taxes in rural areas as the effects of LVT would mean less suburban encroachment on rural land.

My particular town in a small "city" and has a 2-block, early 1900s downtown. Surrounded by about 2 square miles of mid 1900s suburban neighborhoods surrounded by more-rural residential areas with lots of open land out in that "outer township". If the total taxable value for the township remains at the same dollar amount (it has to, or else there isn't enough revenue to run the township), but instead of being based on the value of the property including the improvements, it changes to where it is split equally per square unit of measurement, then the tax burden goes down on the neighborhoods, and up on the vacant lands. The owners of improved properties would see their taxes cut in half, because they own relatively small parcels, and the owners of a 10-acre field just outside of town would see their taxes increase pretty dramatically.

The total number of tax dollars ARE NOT going to decrease. And my town is kind of off by itself,, more than 30 miles from anything that could be considered a "big" city.

Mach · Dec 19, 2017

Ah live in a single house and don't hav kidz, why I gotta pay fur skoolz!? What dem edemucated kidz ever dun 4 me?

Critter7r · Dec 19, 2017

Mach said:
Ah live in a single house and don't hav kidz, why I gotta pay fur skoolz!? What dem edemucated kidz ever dun 4 me?

They refrained from robbing you. Because education.

jaeger19 · Dec 20, 2017

Geoist said:
Because... ? If you are going to make an argument then make it and back it up.

I think it would be obvious. We have little evidence of what societies were like 40,000 years ago since its pre written history. . AND current hunter gatherer societies today don't live in complete isolation. they have been influenced by other societies that are not hunter gatherer societies over centuries. that's just a simple fact. AND those hunter gatherer societies are often not describing their own culture and beliefs but are being seen through the eyes of outsiders. Which introduces all sorts of bias.

I never argued they are/were perfectly egalitarian, just more egalitarian.

Which is not really based on historical fact and only based on a a romantic perception. For example. in hunter gatherer societies, historically what was the social mobility of woman and men? Could a woman decide she wanted to be a warrior and be accepted into a warrior society?

How about woman in American culture? Can they be warriors?

You keep saying that, yet you have disproven nothing. Tell me again why I should accept your theory over an anthropologists'?

that's called an appeal to authority. I would suggest that you do more reading on hunter gatherer societies and on the study of anthropology. By the way.. you should also understand and read about anthropologists and researcher bias. You will realize that anthropologists have a long history (probably more so than most other scientific fields) of injecting their own bias into the study of cultures.

Ah, so you are pointing to people who have been wrong (whoever they are, you provided no link) as 'proof' that this professor is wrong.

So... why should I believe you over him again?

The question is.. why aren't you questioning his statements? You claim he is correct.. simply because he was an anthropologist (appeal to authority). I have presented that other anthropologists have gotten it wrong. Therefore.. logically.. the argument that since it comes from a anthropologist it must be correct, is false.

jimbo · Dec 20, 2017

Geoist said:
We absolutely should discourage speculation of sites. It is real estate speculation that creates the boom/bowerusts our country has to suffer every decade or so.

No it's not. The last bust was created by the belief that everybody deserves home ownership. That coupled with new lowered down payments, credit requirements, lower interest, and lower overall piti payments led to the crisis.

Another case of government free market meddling gone bad.

jaeger19 · Dec 20, 2017

Geoist said:
Except under LVT you no longer pay taxes on your improvements, including house, so there would be less incentive to move into the country.

.

No.. there was no current tax incentive to move to the country. In my example.. both vacant land was valued at 100,000 and both were taxed exactly the same. 5,000. there was no incentive to move to the country based on taxes. that's because the tax system is the same.

People in the city/suburbs tend to have more capital on their plot than country plots (except for, perhaps, farms). If that capital is untaxed then people would be less likely to move outward and encroach on farmers.

That's a function of development.. not of tax system. When they move to the country.. they build houses.. they then get taxed on that capital as well. there is no difference in tax system between rural and urban. thus the incentive you claim exists. due to tax system.. does not actually exist.

There is growing evidence that urban sprawl is having an increasingly negative effect on the environment and on the quality of life across Europe... According to the report, the level of sprawl increased in all European countries in the 2000s and it continues to grow. The report underlines the need for better policy measures and knowledge tools to address urban sprawl’s negative impacts.

Sure.. that's because of population growth. My point is that it was not as problematic as in the US. or at least as evident. European cities tend to have more mass transit, more amenities for the urban dweller, etc.

You are so focused on the property tax rate being the same whether it were in rural/urban settings. Urban settings have far more capital than rural settings. Untaxing that capital means smaller burden than with what we have now for city-dwellers

.

right.. but that again is due to development and not due to tax system. If I develop that rural land, it will have the same tax as the urban setting. that's not a factor of the tax system. Once I develop that rural land so I can live on it.. the tax is applied the same.

The incentive that you say exists because of the tax system.. really doesn't exist.

What matters is what is on the property. If improvements were not taxed then you'd have fewer people and businesses looking outward and more people and businesses looking inward. You would not have 22.2 square miles of vacant land in NYC alone.

No.. because whether that value is in the city.. or that value is in the country.. the tax rate/system is the same. The reason that you see business looking outward is because THATS WHERE THE DEMAND IS. If there was high demand for business in the city. then that's where the business locates. If there were high demand in the country.. then that's where business locates. Its not because of the tax system.

The demand increases when the tax on improvements is lowered or eliminated

no.. the improvements happen because of demand for those improvements. You aren't building a multimillion dollar suburb in the middle of nowhere.. because no one wants to live there.. but the taxes.. oh the taxes are lower. Sorry man but it just doesn't work that way. Conservatives, real conservatives understand economics. SOME taxes influence certain actions. You put an excise/sin tax on say high dollar yachts built in America? That will reduce demand for American made yachts. (and it did). Giving me a tax cut as this tax bill will do? Its not going to make me increase production, or hire more people, or pay higher salaries.. when there is no increase in demand.

jaeger19 · Dec 20, 2017

Geoist said:
How so? If anything, it would help reduce taxes in rural areas as the effects of LVT would mean less suburban encroachment on rural land.

Please explain exactly how you are assessing the value of these semi-rural tracts of open land. (with development slowing coming closer)

Currently they would be assessed a low value because they are unimproved. Explain how their value would decrease further under a LVT...

jaeger19 · Dec 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
I'm imagining a semi-rural area with some larger tracts (say 2 to 10 acres) of open land that are not being used for anything, and the change to your tax rate is going to double or triple the amount of taxes owed on these properties that are currently generating no income for their owners. So these people are going to do 1 of 3 things : develop this land (and create more sprawl), waste a lot more money sitting on a vacant property, R they're going to stop paying the increased taxes that they can't afford, in which case the property will revert back to the municipality or the county.

actually in all likelihood.. they would sell the land at a value lower than its actual value to get out from the burden and sell the land to a wealthy conglomerate that could afford to pay the increased taxes until such time that demand for housing would create a profitable situation for developing that land.

Critter7r · Dec 20, 2017

jaeger19 said:
actually in all likelihood.. they would sell the land at a value lower than its actual value to get out from the burden and sell the land to a wealthy conglomerate that could afford to pay the increased taxes until such time that demand for housing would create a profitable situation for developing that land.

Exactly my point.

Either that, or they would just stop paying the increased taxes and the property would revert to the county government, at which point there would be no tax being collected on the property. When this happens enough times, everyone else's taxes have to be raised to pay for the decrese in revenue.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

SirGareth · Dec 20, 2017

lefty louie said:
I/e own a 2nd home we use on weekends and summer vacation, we don't rent it out so there is no possible way of us ever using the school district, yet we pay about 50% of or $3,000 property tax towards the school district.

It's gotten to the point we're thinking about listing the house and spending that 6K on a summer rental for 6 weeks, we'd still save thousands over the course of a year and not have the headache of homeownership.

You have gotten the gist of Democrat "magic:"

Tax the hell out of people who cannot vote you out of office. Its how the politicians get so fitly rich being our "servants."

Is how administrators of "not-for-profits" make a million bucks a year administering "skool bidness" that can never fail no matter how stupid they are as long as they can tax the hell out of people who neither vote them out nor control their salaries.

jaeger19 · Dec 20, 2017

Critter7r said:
Exactly my point.

Either that, or they would just stop paying the increased taxes and the property would revert to the county government, at which point there would be no tax being collected on the property. When this happens enough times, everyone else's taxes have to be raised to pay for the decrese in revenue.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Yep..

there is a contradiction here. On one hand Geoist argues that the LVT will discourage speculation (allowing land to lie idle), because a higher LVT would incentivize using that land to its higher potential.

then in the next sentence.. he states that the land value will be LOWER.. under LVT.