[Speed Gibson,
Monday April 2, 2007 at 11:09am]
Point of View
I chanced to see a snippet of an interview with a legislator, presumably DFL, talking about property taxes. Paraphrasing, she said that we can all agree that property taxes are inherently unfair because they are not based on the ability to pay. I found this point of view very revealing, for I think most of us think property taxes are unfair because we're not getting our money's worth.
Are property taxes simply a funding mechanism for local units of government? Not any more, now that the State also gets a cut, and a larger cut if the DFL has their way this session. But let's ignore that for the moment.
Property taxes should be the primary funding mechanism for local government which provides the many services the owner requires: police, fire, streets, water, sewers, parks, and general city government. Prorating by property values within classes of property is a reasonable way of allocating those costs.
Since the state incurs some costs in providing property related services, it's not wrong for the state to assess property taxes, on everyone, not just commercial property.
Anything else, like education and welfare should not be funded by property taxes, since they are associated with people, not property. Stripped of these unrelated costs, property taxes can and should be paid by everyone, including churches, school districts, even park-and-ride MTC lots.
The worst thing we can do is perpetuate the current inequities of disproportionately taxing commercial property, waiving taxes for charitable and public properties, and loading everyone with unrelated costs. Regardless of your point of view on fairness, basing it on ability of pay doesn't make it more fair.
Why should someone making $50,000 living at a 1 acre $350,000 suburban house pay less than someone else making $150,000 residing in a $100,000 house on a quarter acre urban lot?
Are property taxes simply a funding mechanism for local units of government? Not any more, now that the State also gets a cut, and a larger cut if the DFL has their way this session. But let's ignore that for the moment.
Property taxes should be the primary funding mechanism for local government which provides the many services the owner requires: police, fire, streets, water, sewers, parks, and general city government. Prorating by property values within classes of property is a reasonable way of allocating those costs.
Since the state incurs some costs in providing property related services, it's not wrong for the state to assess property taxes, on everyone, not just commercial property.
Anything else, like education and welfare should not be funded by property taxes, since they are associated with people, not property. Stripped of these unrelated costs, property taxes can and should be paid by everyone, including churches, school districts, even park-and-ride MTC lots.
The worst thing we can do is perpetuate the current inequities of disproportionately taxing commercial property, waiving taxes for charitable and public properties, and loading everyone with unrelated costs. Regardless of your point of view on fairness, basing it on ability of pay doesn't make it more fair.
Why should someone making $50,000 living at a 1 acre $350,000 suburban house pay less than someone else making $150,000 residing in a $100,000 house on a quarter acre urban lot?