Property tax a bad idea
In his column “It would be a bad idea to replace property taxes to pay for public schools” (Oct. 13 and TribLIVE.com), Ray Richman wrote that property owners' property-tax burden cannot be shifted to others (tenants).
Well, the first thing added to the list of expenses making up the rent is the property tax, divided by 12. The tenant pays it!
Richman claims the property tax “is economical to administer” and goes on to say the last Allegheny County reassessment cost $30 million plus $10 million to fix errors plus more millions of dollars to “reasonably” update. In reality, the property tax is one of the most expensive taxes to collect as a proportion of revenue. Keep in mind that property is valueless until sold.
Richman says that the property tax is more progressive than a sales tax. Consider this: Tom and Joe buy identical houses. Tom makes $50,000 a year; Joe, $100,000. Tom lives frugally and invests money and sweat equity, making his house the nicest on the block. Joe, two houses away, lives an expensive lifestyle, investing nothing in his property, which in time becomes the worst property on the block.
The new assessment doubles Tom's property value and halves Joe's. Now, Tom pays four times the property tax that Joe pays. There is no relationship to the ability to pay.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ambrosini’s logic lacking
- Better stores needed
- Treat UNC like PSU
- Superstition’s role
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Keith Rothfus is the right choice
- Gross in 45th
- Barbour sentence shameful
- ObamaCare solution
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice