PropertyTaxReform

Are Property Tax "Circuit Breakers" a 'Solution' to anything?

A committee convened by former New York Governor Spitzer is looking at the Property Tax in NYS with an eye to capping it or providing so-called circuit breakers, in the form of a rebate from the state for any 70% of the residential (owner-occupied, first home) property tax that exceeds a certain percentage of a household's Adjusted Gross Income.

Bill Batt: Property Tax Relief Measures: Answers to the "Poor Widow" Argument

Link: Bill Batt: Property Tax Relief Measures: Answers to the "Poor Widow" Argument

One of the things we hear about property taxes is that rising property taxes are driving poor widows on fixed incomes out of their lifetime homes -- and that therefore the property tax must be "reformed" or replaced by taxes which fall on other groups of citizens: e.g., workers, consumers.

Is this the direction we should go?  Is the fact that some people live in places they can no longer afford a reason to make a major change in the tax most municipalities rely on?

LVTfan thinks otherwise.  Yes, the property tax is in need of some reform, but it is fundamentally the best tax available to us.
 

CT: Revitalizing older cities

Recently, four city mayors in Connecticut proposed that cities ought to  be permitted to impose a 1% sales tax if they chose.  Those who spend much time thinking about incentives recognize this as a poor idea.  I particularly liked this pair of letters to the editor in the New London Day:

Is LVT the answer? It depends what the question is.

The title for this post was prompted by an article in the NYT about people not raised on farms deciding to become farmers, particularly in places near large cities.  It seems that local food was said to be the answer to a number of questions.  I'm generally in favor of it, but I'm not sure it is the answer to as many questions as its supporters claim.  That doesn't make "local food" a bad thing; just not the answer to as many questions as it might seem.

But the title for this post sprang to mind.  It seems to me that Land Value Taxation is the answer to a lot of very important questions.

Fixing Wages, and Fixing Housing Affordability -- for All of Us

By this, I mean fixing the problem of low wages -- wages insufficient to support an individual or a family in conditions we consider acceptable on a reasonable number of hours of labor per week. I don't mean minimum wage legislation, or living wage legislation, both of which I regard as well-intentioned but ultimately destructive for the community they intend to help.  I don't mean measures like the Earned Income Tax Credit, either.  It appears that people must jump through high hoops to get those dollars (which often seems to require professional advice, at a price), and then a significant portion of the money goes not to the wage earner but to his tax preparer/advisor, in the form of fees and interest.

Working harder, making others richer

Bob Herbert wrote, in his 3/11/08 column entitled "Sharing the Pain", in part,

The American dream is on life support because men and women by the millions who want very much to work — who still have in their heads the ideal of a thriving family in a nice home with maybe a picket fence — are unable to find a decent job.

For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable.

• Wives and mothers have gone to work.   
  
• People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.
• And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.

Who has gotten the benefits of women spending many more years and many more hours per year in the workplace?  Who has benefited from Americans carrying more and more debt?  How does this relate to the run-up in the price of housing?  I said I'd write about these issues in another post.   This is it.

Bob Herbert's 3/11 column, Sharing the Pain: The "Near-Poor"

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11herbert.html

It begins with the statement,

Now that the economic crunch is reaching those near the top of the pyramid, there is finally a sense that the U.S. is facing a real crisis.

The article goes on to talk about the large group of  "near-poor" in America -- the 60 million people who are "just one notch above the official poverty line," with incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four.

We have always gotten a distorted picture of how well Americans were doing from politicians and the media. The U.S. has a population of 300 million. Thirty-seven million, many of them children, live in poverty. Close to 60 million are just one notch above the official poverty line. These near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four.

It is disgraceful that in a nation as wealthy as the United States, nearly a third of the people are poor or near-poor.

You can read the statistics, expressed in terms of income multiples of the Federal Poverty Guideline here.  I think you'll find them moving.

It isn't that I don't agree there is a problem -- readers of this blog likely know that  -- but must point out that defining the problem this way, as the authors of "The Missing Class" do, misses the point that $20,000 or $40,000 for a family of 4 in rural Alabama is very different from $20,000 to $40,000 in New York City or San Francisco, or any of our other major metropolitan areas, where the vast majority of us live. [See data about the cost of living in America's low-cost counties, and in America's major cities.]