This is the prime example of "You pay, and I don't want to pay."
I would agree if it only talked about taxing the wealth. Our country should be about the equal opportunity. Taxing wealth to provide better future and equal opportunity (by providing equal opportunity for education etc) for our kids would have had a better sounding theme. And one that majority of the people can agree to. (The equal opportunity should go for the different types of class of people, not just rich or poor. Just taxing the wealthy more would not be equal. On the other hand, if it was middle class paying more, that won't be equal.)
The critical thing this nation doesn't understand is that land values -- and housing rents -- rise in proportion to low taxes.
When we cut the tax burden on everyone 2001-2003, land values -- and rents -- rose to take every dollar we were saving on taxes.
Back in 2001 I did not understand this dynamic -- but lemme tell you, I sure wish I had!
So if we just tax wealth in general we would be attacking the problem only tangentially.
If we were to double taxes across the board -- from people working for minimum wage and billionaires -- the end result would be better than just taxing wealth, since it is the poor and middle class that also bid up rents and land values.
The most efficient tax would be a direct tax on rents, but that is easily demagogued with threats that LLs will just raise rents to avoid their incidence.
We should also tax the extraction of resources from our stock of wealth. Oil severance taxes etc.
We could also tax the EM spectrum more heavily. All the spectrum sales have been incredibly stupid, giving away wealth.
Equal opportunity? How can you have equal opportunity if one group of people is printing millions of dollars and giving it to themselves, while everyone else is doing hourly taxes and getting several orders of magnitude less?
The point being, everyone can get into the same game -- the real game -- by not taxing income, and letting each person get up the ladder to wealth without Uncle Sam picking his pocket until he's finished climbing the ladder.
Once again, I agree. I thought I was saying the same thing. Or you are just reinforcing what I am saying? The problem is rich wants you to pay their fair share of tax. And they don't want to pay any.
So CA had less taxes compared to other areas?Tx has more taxes?
Like I said, it's odd that nobody can work through this rather obvious relationship.
Housing is sold on the bid, so a lower income tax rate -- like the across-the-board Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 -- results in everyone bidding up the price of housing.
The price of housing has little to do with its actual construction cost or even current replacement cost. Stuff built in the 1950s in some areas of the Bay Area sells for a million or more.
The price is solely set at what we need to outbid the other people who want to buy where we want to live.
Now, to get to your question, Texas does in fact have relatively high property taxes; the Austin area is in the 2.4-2.5% of assessed value range. This is twice that of California.
Now, my actual point should have been rising disposable -- after tax -- incomes push up home prices.
I fail to see how anyone could really argue with this, LOL. But people do!
Housing is not like other forms of wealth. By definition real estate is immobile, so it can't shift location to respond to increasing demand. And it's a life necessity, we all need a spot of ground to call home unless you want to live like a prehistoric caveman (or find a boat or something to try to live on).
And the demand for it overwhelms supply in most areas. Most everyone would like to have more land to call their own, or live in a better/safer neighborhood, or have a vacation house or two . . .