[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Meh, I pay whatever majority decides I should be paying for in the form of property taxes. Seems to be working so far.

But is it, though? It's a painfully inefficient and volatile tax people bitch about every year. If we're going to be taxed, let it be as efficient and consistent as possible, wouldn't you say?

Sounds like urbanites sour grapes to me. You pay for my roads, I pay for your bike lanes, public transit, and downtown roads.

Except it's your public transit, too. Who's commute do you think mass transit helps more? A person driving in from the suburbs, or somebody who lives in the Beltline?

I pay more for my 1800 sqft home than I do for my 600 sqft rental unit downtown. Seems fair to me. I also pay more in utilities costs and upkeep costs, for the size of my home, which is also fair.

But why should you pay more property tax for your house, than an undeveloped empty lot next to it? The roads still need to be maintained. The utilities still needed to be built to support a development on that lot. The costs are there, factored into an area that is completely built, but that isn't how we tax it. If you chose to expand your house to 2,000 square feet, you'll be taxed more. But why? You aren't adding to any burden on the infrastructure to the house. You'll pay for the extra room via utilities. But what justifies the tax difference between a 2,000 square foot single-family home and an 1,800 square foot single family home next to it on equally sized lots? You upgrade your siding, do some landscaping, change your windows. Your assessment goes up and you get taxed more than somebody who did nothing. Why?



How many sprawling developments would be built if the lot was taxed the same from the time a road and utilities was built to it, as a house was built on it?