Here I've had to learn a lot about the baroque mosaic that is Italian taxation. The property tax part is interesting and could be salient to this (hijacked) discussion.
There are 3 interesting factors:
1.) There is a 3% 'sales tax' upon purchase. So that takes care of part of the equation that is linked to price. The % goes higher if it is for a second home or for a 'luxury' home (based on certain characteristics).
2.) THEN there is a yearly tax assessment (6/1000 or thereabouts, each town is different) but not based on actual value; it's based on a theoretical 'income' calculated by the features of the house (volume, amount of land, garage, etc.). People living in more modest-scale houses will always pay less even if by some fluke when they bought they paid more than their neighbor did for a bigger/older house.
3.) then the icing on the cake that could further protect oldsters in smaller homes: there is an exemption for any yearly tax under a certain amount; folks here in the smallest homes often pay little or nothing.
I can't imagine an approach like this catching on in the US, but to me it seems more fair because it recoups something both from sales prices and from ongoing residence.
UNfair is the garbage tax, which is paid separately and is based on m2. The assumption is, bigger house => more people => more garbage. All trash is collected from dumpsters that are found every couple of blocks.
The most 'fair' system that I've heard of in the States and in parts of Northern Europe: buy city bags at $x/bag.. if it's not in a city bag it doesn't get picked up. That would only work if there's sidewalk collection in areas of single- or two-family homes, not with tons of multi-unit buildings. IIRC, in Boston they would do sidewalk collection but not for apartment complexes, who had to have private trash contractors.. That wasn't fair for apt. bldg./condo owners who'd paid prop. tax and then had to pay again for private trash pickup..
On the original topic, I'm a fan of universal health care, so to me, if an employer provides access and subsidies, they should do so in a spirit of retaining good employees and not penalize those who are older or with families. But I think the selling-off is contrary to the spirit of the benefit; once you go there, then yeah, the company should just raise everyone's salary by $x/month and get out of the health-care providing biz.
it is unfair that my insurance premiums might be more than 1/2 that of a married couple or even more unbalanced when they also have kids.
LG4NB.. yeah! Not the employer's fault... this is a very annoying aspect of HMOs. In my case 2 individual plans cost less than the family plan, but I couldn't buy a second single plan for DH.. had to go "family" at an increased cost.. which was the same for the two of us as it was for my business partner plus his wife and 2 kids that were running to the doctor literally every 2 weeks for doses of antibiotics for ear infections and cases of strep.
Go figure...
Nope, they can not even afford the houses.. so buy something two or so hours commute...
