![]() |
"Propert tax increases are alway made under the pretense of equalization" |
![]() |
|
Home Our
Mission Get
Involved Press Need
help? About Us Property
Tax
Municipal Spending Contacts |
Any discussion of the current situation must start with the fact that the whole idea of a “property tax” is one that made sense as a revenue source to support major governance functions two centuries ago but has little positive relevance now. The “property tax,” especially a tax on owner-occupied residential property is an historical anachronism. It was useful when 95 percent of the households were non-urban and owning land was not just the primary measure of wealth, it was the resource that was used to earn money. Even those who owned an urban home likely lived in the back or up stairs and ran their business or profession out of a storefront or from a workshop on the alley. The primary reason for a tax on property, especially owner- occupied residential property would be:
Finally, the so called “reforms” like California’s Proposition 13 ceilings, rollbacks, homestead exemptions and other crutches are not “solutions.” They only add complexity to a outmoded system of public revenue generation. The only significant change that has been on any table is split-rate tax for urban land. (This is the opposite of the New Jersey Uniformity Rule, RCO) From Bacon's Rebellion Blog http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/ America’s top mayor uses split-rate land taxPosted by taxpayer on Harrisburg (PA) Mayor Steve Reed came in third in the world-wide
“Outstanding Mayor” poll, but was the highest-scoring American. Under Reed, He enthusiastically took the opportunity of |
![]() |
|
|
Copyright © 2006 All
Rights Reserved
|
|