I didn't wish to clog up the recent pages on property taxes in the Trump Year V, so here goes.

So far I've not heard how "other" taxes, fairly, make up for removing local property taxes. I say this because most of us have one income and a lifestyle which spends it,(or save some). Here in PA we have a state tax to take advantage of that revenue. Property taxes are local. Companies, developers, landlords, large property groups of all kinds, have large holdings in which a tax exemption would seem to benefit them MUCH more than an a solitary income and home. My question is not about how .gov spends our money.

What am I missing that makes it fair for individuals if the largest holders are exempt? Is it as simple as only residences are exempt?

If your state has a sales tax and a property tax then it is a ripoff.
We don't have a sales tax. We have an income tax and a property tax. Local jurisdictions will give corps property tax exemptions because they provide jobs and other benefits to local cities counties etc. it is a shell game and local corrupt officials get their pockets padded.

Taxes are not about fairness. Taxes are to raise cash for politicians to spend, which primarily is to assist them in getting reelected. They only fix the roads and fund the schools because that is what we want.

Taxes also incentivize businesses one way or another. Exempting businesses from some taxes will entice them into the community, which generates additional sales taxes (and possibly causes more homes to be built). The politicians get to spend those additional dollars to help their reelection.

Big corporations can leverage big carrots, showing huge sales taxes if they locate in the area, but only if the city grants property tax breaks. They can also dangle the prospect of many new jobs, which helps reelection. Without the exemption they won't locate there, and the tax revenues are zero.

Politicians are rarely motivated by the Right Thing. They love greater net tax revenues because they get to spend it. They don't care about the fairness of regular families or retirees struggling to pay property taxes vs some huuge corporation getting an exemption.

quote:

Politicians are rarely motivated by the Right Thing.

I would take exception to this statement. It is more that "the Right Thing" means something different to them than to their constituency. For politicians, the only "right thing" is to get re-elected, and this is their entire raison d'être.

quote:

Property taxes are local. Companies, developers, landlords, large property groups of all kinds, have large holdings in which a tax exemption would seem to benefit them MUCH more than an a solitary income and home. My question is not about how .gov spends our money.

What am I missing that makes it fair for individuals if the largest holders are exempt? Is it as simple as only residences are exempt?

I'm not sure I understand your question...
Are you saying that in PA developers, landlords, large property groups of all kinds, have large holdings which are tax exempt?

Here in my local jurisdiction commercial real estate is taxed. What's not taxed?
Church, school, fire department, government, and hospital properties.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:

quote:

Politicians are rarely motivated by the Right Thing.

I would take exception to this statement. It is more that "the Right Thing" means something different to them than to their constituency. For politicians, the only "right thing" is to get re-elected, and this is their entire raison d'être.

You’re probably right. I try to put a (slightly) less cynical spin on it and consider that they honestly think that they really are trying to do the best thing for their community, and are only occasionally making minor concessions to better hold onto their seat so that they can keep doing the best thing for their community. Sadly, I am too realistic to believe that, as much as I’d like to, at least with respect to most politicians.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Taxes are not about fairness. Taxes are to raise cash for politicians to spend, which primarily is to assist them in getting reelected. They only fix the roads and fund the schools because that is what we want.

Taxes also incentivize businesses one way or another. Exempting businesses from some taxes will entice them into the community, which generates additional sales taxes (and possibly causes more homes to be built). The politicians get to spend those additional dollars to help their reelection.

Big corporations can leverage big carrots, showing huge sales taxes if they locate in the area, but only if the city grants property tax breaks. They can also dangle the prospect of many new jobs, which helps reelection. Without the exemption they won't locate there, and the tax revenues are zero.

Politicians are rarely motivated by the Right Thing. They love greater net tax revenues because they get to spend it. They don't care about the fairness of regular families or retirees struggling to pay property taxes vs some huuge corporation getting an exemption.

^^^ This is an accurate description of how things work in Iowa. Businesses frequently negotiated 10 to 20 year tax abatement and more in exchange for building in a city. Larger businesses would force cities to negotiate against other nearby cities.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I'm not sure I understand your question...
Are you saying that in PA developers, landlords, large property groups of all kinds, have large holdings which are tax exempt?

Here in my local jurisdiction commercial real estate is taxed. What's not taxed?
Church, school, fire department, government, and hospital properties.

You may recall Absolutely Occluded Cortex (AOC) celebrating how she prevented Amazon from moving to New York. There was a potential deal that would give Amazon a break on some taxes (I don’t recall the details) for some period of time in exchange for coming there instead of somewhere else and bringing lots of good high paying jobs with them. This is a common arrangement, often with local governments competing to make the best offer in order to lure XYZ company to bring the business to their local economy. It can involve tax breaks, credits, whatever the locality wants to offer.

Where it is a good idea or not often depends on the residents point of view. If the last engineering company in the tristate area just folded, leaving you, an engineer, unemployed and wondering how you’re going to pay your mortgage, then your local government giving a huge engineering company incentives to move to your town might seem like a great idea. If you have a nice sleepy town and make your living with a business selling horseback rides to tourists through a beautiful vacant piece of property where the engineering company is looking to fence off and build their facilities, you might have a different view.

Individuals should pay taxes, not entities. Entities (corporations) are owned by someone who pays taxes and they employ people who pay taxes. They shouldn't have to also pay corporate taxes.

quote:

Individuals should pay taxes, not entities. Entities (corporations) are owned by someone who pays taxes and they employ people who pay taxes. They shouldn't have to also pay corporate taxes.

I thought property taxes were paid by the owner of the property?
If we are going to exempt corporations, I'll just form a corporation and rent from my corporation.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

I'm not sure I understand your question...
Are you saying that in PA developers, landlords, large property groups of all kinds, have large holdings which are tax exempt?

Here in my local jurisdiction commercial real estate is taxed. What's not taxed?
Church, school, fire department, government, and hospital properties.

Yes answering this is complicated because of differences state by state. Here is PA the question of eliminating property taxes comes up regularly, and I'm not convinced it favors individual homeowners but wondered if I'm missing something. Just wondering how, as one example, adding to the sales tax would be equal for all. Is the "support" for this, just folks who think it is eliminating a tax, because it is not, just collecting it differently.

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:
Businesses frequently negotiated 10 to 20 year tax abatement and more in exchange for building in a city. Larger businesses would force cities to negotiate against other nearby cities.

That happens here all the time, even when the citizens oppose the development! There are 3 such projects in this part of the state where the citizens strongly oppose turning natural land into sprawling new developments, but the politicians have somehow, mysteriously, been convinced to approve them. The state legislature even passed a specific bill to over-rule a citizen referendum. That referendum came about when the city council wouldn't abide the voters' position.

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:

Yes answering this is complicated because of differences state by state. Here is PA the question of eliminating property taxes comes up regularly, and I'm not convinced it favors individual homeowners but wondered if I'm missing something. Just wondering how, as one example, adding to the sales tax would be equal for all. Is the "support" for this, just folks who think it is eliminating a tax, because it is not, just collecting it differently.

The people who would be for this would certainly be property owners. They really don't care how the tax is made up elsewhere. If the sales tax will increase, then older retired people won't mind because they don't buy much anymore other than healthcare related services.

Arkansas taxes everything.

1. Income TAX (Military retirement exempt)
2. Property (Real estate) "School" TAX (county specific)
3. Personal Property (annual on cars, trucks, boats, RVs, etc) TAX
4. Sales TAX (State 6.5 % plus county/muni add on) MAX rate 11.5%