The city in which folks reside has a great deal to do with the average real estate tax they pay each year. And the tax bite varies GREATLY depending on the specifics of your location:
Please scroll down to view average RE tax data for fifty American cities
This is an automatically-generated Wiki post for this new topic. Any member can edit this post and use it as a summary of the topic’s highlights.
I don’t see how their analysis is worth anything since 70% of the data points are missing. OK, the statistician in me wants to say that a study with observations from 30% of the population is actually quite complete, but that’s true only if the samples are randomly collected. These aren’t.
No way! Taxes are higher in CA, NY and bigger cities in general? I had no idea! And most people don’t itemize their taxes because they save money with the standard deduction? WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!!1?!
Yes taxes vary.
They seem to be looking at IRS income tax return data. Thats not really exactly representative of property taxes. If you dont’ itemize then your property taxes won’t show up on your income tax returns. Lots of people don’t itemize for varying reasons.
Still its fairly representative. THe most expensive cities in tax heavy states have higher property tax bills.
Here in CA we were blessed by Howard Jarvis and the 1978 CA voters by Proposition 13. With this law/constitutional amendment, the tax basis is fixed when you buy your property and can only increase by 2% per year. The tax rate is also fixed at 1% of the basis.
As a result, the tax amount can vary wildly in a single neighborhood. For example, I estimate that I pay about 1/10 the tax of my neighbors who bought recently.
Despite that,
The Legislature’s budget analyst, Mac Taylor, points out that “the property tax has grown faster than the economy” since then. (1978)
Far-left Frisco NPR station
Property tax is the original wealth tax. I think all the Democrat presidential candidates support a wealth tax on investments despite the fact that it was tried in several Euro-socialist countries and it had to be repealed.
I’d argue the opposite. That policy has caused many middle-class families to flee California. The Prop 13 law creates a huge incentive for incumbent residents to vote for all kinds of government services because they know they don’t have to pay for them. They can just dump the bill on anyone who moves into a new house. It also creates artificially high housing prices because no one wants to sell to avoid losing their tax benefit.
If you’re the one getting the benefit it is great. If you’re the one subsidizing everyone who gets the benefit it is not so great.
When I first heard the term “wealth tax” I thought “the republicans have done it again - they’ve come up with a great name that’s going to kill any chance of getting such a thing passed” (which seems to be a talent that only republicans have). Then I saw it was a democrat that used that term! State taxes are generally more heavily weighted to property taxes in red states.
My question, though, is how can you use what has not worked in countries that you don’t want the US to be like as evidence that a particular plan is not good for the US?
Right so can’t we also use the same simple logic argument to also conclude that what IS popular in countries that we DON’T want the US to be like is stuff that we SHOULD adopt?
Not disagreeing with you about voter’s incentives, but higher taxes should reduce real estate prices. Not only does it increase the cost of owning a home, but taxes are factored in when getting approved for a mortgage hence setting an actual limit.