The Canadian ( Tax ) way...

[pb4uski]

Second time you read something (of mine) and took it the wrong way. I said paying 50% is unfair not paying the taxes. I am offended by your post.

I read your post as saying that property taxes are unfair because 50% of the property taxes that you pay go to fund schools.

I assume that when you purchased the property that you knew (or should have known) that ~50% of the property taxes went towards paying for education and that you still decided to buy... so you implicitly accepted that fact despite knowing that it in your view, isn't fair. As Music Lover points out, in the end we all benefit from a educated electorate.... and other childless property owners funded your education back in the day.

I'm sorry that you are offended by my post but I stand by it.

 

[kcowan]

.. if one doesn't think that property taxes are fair because they are used to fund education, then just don't buy! Life is unfair.. get used to it.

All taxes are unfair to someone because they are for the common good (at best) and that means that some people are paying for nothing. We pay for police and fire and have never explicitly used either!

But like you say, we already know that.

 

[photoguy]

Price $1.3 million
Size 1035 sq.ft. on the 12th floor

Ouch.

In San Diego right now, condos downtown are running from $500 - $1000 USD per sq ft. So I guess you're in good company.

 

[Sunset]

Egads.

Let's presume that anyone who buys a property is not so ignorant and knows that in order to keep the property that they have to pay their property taxes.... if they think that is unfair then just don't buy! Similarly, if one doesn't think that property taxes are fair because they are used to fund education, then just don't buy! Life is unfair.. get used to it.

That presumption would be based on the view that property taxes exist everywhere and they do not.

Here is an example
My family bought 9 acres of land, and built a large house on it, in the very early 1900's
There were no taxes on the property.
It remained owned free and clear for many decades, until some politicians in the local town decided "hey, lets tax those folks who are not even in our town".
Two towns fought over how to tax us, and in the end we got to "pick" which town got the taxes.

The rationale for taxing property, could easily be extended and used to tax savings. You have 1MM in your IRA, please pay 2% of the total every year since it too is a possession.

 

[kcowan]

The rationale for taxing property, could easily be extended and used to tax savings. You have 1MM in your IRA, please pay 2% of the total every year since it too is a possession.

In Canada, the FIs handle that for the uninformed.

 

[sengsational]

Canadian taxation is helping my nephew make a living...he's got a "brew it yourself" wine and beer store because to buy a bottle comparable to "three buck chuck", it costs them like $12. In the wine making store, the customers just pay, sprinkle yeast, and come back later to haul the cases home. It helps shape the Laffer curve of alcoholic beverages, lol!

 

[pb4uski]

That presumption would be based on the view that property taxes exist everywhere and they do not.

Here is an example
My family bought 9 acres of land, and built a large house on it, in the very early 1900's
There were no taxes on the property.
It remained owned free and clear for many decades, until some politicians in the local town decided "hey, lets tax those folks who are not even in our town".
Two towns fought over how to tax us, and in the end we got to "pick" which town got the taxes.

The rationale for taxing property, could easily be extended and used to tax savings. You have 1MM in your IRA, please pay 2% of the total every year since it too is a possession.

Seems like you were lucky as property taxes have been around a long time.

Property taxes in the United States originated during colonial times. By 1796, state and local governments in fourteen of the fifteen states taxed land, but only four taxed inventory (stock in trade). Delaware did not tax property, but rather the income from it. In some states, "all property, with a few exceptions, was taxed; in others, specific objects were named. Land was taxed in one state according to quantity, in another according to quality, and in a third not at all. Responsibility for the assessment and collection of taxes in some cases attached to the state itself; in others, to the counties or townships." Vermont and North Carolina taxed land based on quantity, while New York and Rhode Island taxed land based on value. Connecticut taxed land based on type of use. Procedures varied widely.

During the period from 1796 until the Civil War, a unifying principle developed: "the taxation of all property, movable and immovable, visible and invisible, or real and personal, as we say in America, at one uniform rate." During this period, property taxes came to be assessed based on value. This was introduced as a requirement in many state constitutions.

After the Civil War, intangible property, including corporate stock, took on far greater importance. Taxing jurisdictions found it difficult to find and tax this sort of property. This trend led to the introduction of alternatives to the property tax (such as income and sales taxes) at the state level. Property taxes remained a major source of government revenue below the state level.

 

[meierlde]

As hinted in #57 personal property used to be taxed as well. I remember the tax assessor coming to our home in IN in the 1950s to get the personal property for taxing. There also used to be intangibles taxes in MI for example the banks said they paid them for account holders. It turns out in Fl there is an intangibles tax of .015% on assets over 20k. It appears such taxes also exist at least in KS.

 

[sengsational]

I think that would be "was an intangibles tax (in Florida)"

Though it had an illustrious history dating back to the 1930s, the so-called Florida intangible personal property tax was gradually diminished since 1999 until it was finally rescinded in 2007.