• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Shouldn't Home Prices Go Down Over Time?

Exactly. I would only benefit if I sold the place. This is one reason why I want no taxes for primary residences.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Many places, such as where I live (Texas), offer property tax breaks for one's primary residence - they are called homestead exemptions. If residential property generated no tax revenue then the infrastructure to support it (like schools and roads) would have to come from other sources - in Texas (which has no state income tax) that would be from increased sales taxation or taxation of commercial property.
 
When we buy a car, the value immediately drops once we drive it. It continues to lose value over time. The same is true of computers. The same is true of just about all consumer goods that wear out. The only things that don't lose value are the things that don't degrade, like precious metals. So what is the deal with housing? Why has the cost of housing gone up faster than inflation? Houses degrade with time. A home built 30 years ago, without maintenance, is far less valuable than a home built brand new, so what's the deal?

The issue is land. Land becomes more scarce over time and thus increases in value. As it goes up, the owner now controls more wealth despite doing absolutely nothing to increase the wealth of society. What was worth $50,000 years ago can be worth $500,000 now simply because the land has become more valuable. Continued unimpeded, this leads to the problem we have today, where young people are delaying family formation and are spending more on housing costs than previous generations. This is terrible for society, as our young people remain mired in debt and land owners reap all of the benefits. It's not a good thing that a home costs about 10 years of income whereas in the past it was less than 7 years of income. How do we fix this?

My argument is the following:
1. Increase property taxes greatly on non-primary residences.
2. Eliminate property taxes entirely on primary residences.
3. Eliminate exemptions such as depreciation and maintenance that are currently used as subsidies for landlords.
4. Tax rental income above the rates of normal income.

This way, we establish real property ownership as a good thing. We favor family home ownership in the desire that all families will be able to live on property that they own. We also discourage speculation on land and viewing land as a means of production and generator of wealth. It is neither of these things, and experience has shown that this process, if continued unabated, will lead to only fewer and fewer people owning land and owning most of a country's wealth.

This proposal is entirely reasonable, fair to home owners, and punitive only to those who are getting wealthy through no work of their own. It will lead to a more prosperous, fairer society where people can mature, grow old, and do the real important work in life, which is to start their families and settle down.

In my State property tax is the primary funding source for local governments, school districts, community colleges, fire departments and various other public services and capital projects for the State. How would you fund them? Money has got to come from somewhere.
 
You think you're exempt? You're not going to be lightly populated forever.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.


Mess with our land and you'll get a foot in your ass.


Again, you live in a different world than many of us. Take care of your own problems and leave us out of it.
 
I'm going to look at point 4. Why should someone working a factory job pay the same tax rate as someone who inherited that factory and doesn't do anything?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Because life can be unfair, SO? Why aren't you complaining about what Hollywood LEFTISTS MAKE FOR PLAY-ACTING?

The OVERWHELMING majority of millionaires MADE THEMSELVES RICH. People are not equally talented, intelligent or MOTIVATED.

Over 100,000,000 dead in Red China, Cambodia, post-US-presence Vietnam, Laos, the former USSR, etc. SHOW US what happens when the BIG LIE than "government will make life 'fair' " is tried.


The government has made things "equal" in Venezuela just recently.
 
Because life can be unfair, SO? Why aren't you complaining about what Hollywood LEFTISTS MAKE FOR PLAY-ACTING?

The OVERWHELMING majority of millionaires MADE THEMSELVES RICH. People are not equally talented, intelligent or MOTIVATED.

Over 100,000,000 dead in Red China, Cambodia, post-US-presence Vietnam, Laos, the former USSR, etc. SHOW US what happens when the BIG LIE than "government will make life 'fair' " is tried.


The government has made things "equal" in Venezuela just recently.
This isn't an argument. I'm asking why someone who literally does no work deserves compensation.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Mess with our land and you'll get a foot in your ass.


Again, you live in a different world than many of us. Take care of your own problems and leave us out of it.
The only messing with your land I'm talking about is removing your property taxes. That's a bad thing?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
In my State property tax is the primary funding source for local governments, school districts, community colleges, fire departments and various other public services and capital projects for the State. How would you fund them? Money has got to come from somewhere.
There are plenty of other taxes to choose from. I especially like higher taxes on unearned income.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
I'm going to look at point 4. Why should someone working a factory job pay the same tax rate as someone who inherited that factory and doesn't do anything?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

They likely do not if you are now addressing income taxation. If you are still talking about property taxation they also likely do not.
 
They likely do not if you are now addressing income taxation. If you are still talking about property taxation they also likely do not.
If he's earning his money through capital gains, essentially selling shares, then the inheritor is actually paying a lower rate.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
My point is that it isn't the labor of the property owner that makes it increase in value in the example.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
What about the labor the owner did to be able to purchase it in the first place? The work to pay the mortgage? You start punishing owning income property you reduce the supply - then what happens to those that either can't afford to purchase a home, or just don't want to?
 
What about the labor the owner did to be able to purchase it in the first place? The work to pay the mortgage? You start punishing owning income property you reduce the supply - then what happens to those that either can't afford to purchase a home, or just don't want to?
What about it? Invest in something that actually produces wealth.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
So I didn't make society wealthier, but I benefit from doing nothing.

There's a vast world out there. It's not a binary choice of capitalism vs communism.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Nor is it a binary choice of wages for labor vs "getting paid for doing nothing". Your solution would freeze people in whatever economic strata the found themselves in. No investing for the future, working to improve families quality of living.
 
I'm going to look at point 4. Why should someone working a factory job pay the same tax rate as someone who inherited that factory and doesn't do anything?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Because the person that inherited the factory is providing JOBS for many other people. A person can only work if someone provides a job.
 
This isn't an argument. I'm asking why someone who literally does no work deserves compensation.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
What about if he DID work in the past and amassed enough to invest and live off the income?
 
What about it? Invest in something that actually produces wealth.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Such as . . .?
 
Because the more the population grows, the more valuable living space becomes, except for property/houses in CRAPPY AREAS. It's called "Supply and Demand".

Liberals have no concept of supply and demand.
 
There are plenty of other taxes to choose from. I especially like higher taxes on unearned income.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

So you really have not thought it through. imo, your proposal would lead to the poor and middle class people paying more through the "other taxes" you stated.
I could be sarcastic and state many believe welfare is a "unearned" income. So you would tax the poor more. :mrgreen:

Bottom line. For many States the property tax works just fine as a source of revenue for public services. Maybe California needs to revisit its property tax code to make it more fair for the average citizen.

I suggest you take a basic economic class that deals with land and housing. It might help you understand why some real estate goes up in value and while some does not.
 
Last edited:
If he's earning his money through capital gains, essentially selling shares, then the inheritor is actually paying a lower rate.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

OK, and I agree that the source of one's income should not determine its taxation rate. What this has to do with property or housing costs is unclear. I suppose that you will soon return to your usual (typical?) landlords are evil rant but was actually enjoying your questions and observations concerning building and land costs and the associated area of property taxation.
 
My point is that it isn't the labor of the property owner that makes it increase in value in the example.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Why do you think the only source of wealth is labor?
 
My argument is the following:
1. Increase property taxes greatly on non-primary residences.
2. Eliminate property taxes entirely on primary residences.
3. Eliminate exemptions such as depreciation and maintenance that are currently used as subsidies for landlords.
4. Tax rental income above the rates of normal income.

No need to eliminate property taxes. The other measures sound good.

Property is not that expensive outside of big cities. Why not focus on transportation solutions that allow the suburbs to extend farther out?

I don't think eliminating investment properties would do much good. Most of the high prices are just due to individuals who desperately want to live in a certain area. Look at the inflated prices in districts with good schools.

If I could live in Vermont and commute to NYC in 30 minutes I wouldn't need to get into bidding wars for a small house in NYC.
 
How does a patch of dirt appreciate? Why does a patch of dirt gain a massive value if a skyscraper is built next to it?

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

It is obvious you have never owned a home.

Hint: they aren't making more land.
 
Because the person that inherited the factory is providing JOBS for many other people. A person can only work if someone provides a job.
The inheritor did nothing to provide those jobs. Absolutely nothing.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
The inheritor did nothing to provide those jobs. Absolutely nothing.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Other than keep the business running. Minor point.
 
What about if he DID work in the past and amassed enough to invest and live off the income?
Then he has that money to live off of. Money alone does not create wealth. If it did, we could just print enough to make everyone a millionaire and send scarcity.

Money is not a means of production.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
So you really have not thought it through. imo, your proposal would lead to the poor and middle class people paying more through the "other taxes" you stated.
I could be sarcastic and state many believe welfare is a "unearned" income. So you would tax the poor more. :mrgreen:

Yes, I'm also against unearned income by the poor. I want welfare for able bodied adults abolished. Either they get a job, work for the state, or get nothing.

[/QUOTE] Bottom line. For many States the property tax works just fine as a source of revenue for public services. Maybe California needs to revisit its property tax code to make it more fair for the average citizen.

I suggest you take a basic economic class that deals with land and housing. It might help you understand why some real estate goes up in value and while some does not.[/QUOTE]

I'm not an idiot. I understand plenty what affects property values. You just explain to me why someone, say, buys parking lots and then when skyscrapers are built next to them he should become a millionaire.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Back
Top Bottom