Owing your home today is nearly impossible, but even if you did the ever increasing property taxes will bury you

People that complain about taxes. I’ll agree you don’t pay taxes. But you don’t use any roads to travel. Ever again.
- I work with one of those people. He's a dipshit. He thinks time is controlled by satellites and clouds are made by cloud machines. Also, the earth is flat and no one has left it because of the dome.
  
  Mine him for Sci-fi stories.
- Or fire services.
- That's the only issue with the opt-in taxes idea. But seriously, why should the rest of us be punished because they don't want taxes? Just have the destructive people who say taxation is theft, well...live with no government services, 100% dependent on corporations. Taxes should be opt-in. And that means, those who opt out will have no medical service, no public sewage system, no disability or welfare. We can let them have the roads as gratis, just to keep the peace. They will quickly realize how stupid and evil their system really is, when they are the only ones suffering from it.
  
  This sounds nice but in practice will backfire. You need the systems to be universal, so that everyone, including the richest, have a stake in wanting to see them improved. Otherwise you'll get a two tiered system where the public versions are trash because they're underfunded and the private versions (what the rich use) are great but also expensive af.
  You want things to work like insurance, where everyone pays in but only the people who need them use it. I want Musk to pay a fuckton into Social Security, not nothing at all because he doesn't use it. Even now there's a problem with Social Security in particular because, even though everyone has to pay it, it puts a cap/limit on how much you pay, so Musk currently ends up paying his share in the first day of the year, and his contribution amounts to the same as a teacher or something.
  Universal programs with progressive taxation, that's the way. Low taxes at the bottom, high taxes at the top.

So property tax I am ok with, in theory. The people with property in a city should pay for services like fire, schools, police, road maintenance..... What gets me is when the city wants more and more for stupid shit like iPads for all students.... Every 3 years due to forced upgrades or just old style deprecation over 3 years.
The amount my taxes go up each year is more than any raise I get. Then add on insurance which has gone insane. I paid off my house to avoid a 20k female flood insurance bill because a 1 foot piece of concrete touched a high risk flood zone. A technicality because if I took down a screen patio, then I wouldn't have to pay.
It's insane how expensive owning a house has become
- I paid off my house to avoid a 20k female flood insurance bill
  Female flood sounds interesting
  
  Did they mean FEMA, and autocorrect "completed" it?
- Dont forget increased pay for public servants who more and more act like they dont work for the public
- It doesn't make sense that cities need to increase property taxes every year though
  Property tax revenue should be increasing every year by default without changing the rate simply because houses and properties increase in value every year typically
  If property tax is 5% and the town makes $100,000,000, the next year if property value increases by 5% then their revenue goes up 5% as well to $105,000,000 automatically. Why do they need to also increase the tax to 6%?
- Every 3 years due to forced upgrades or just old style deprecation over 3 years.
  iPads don't deprecate in 3 years, nor require forced upgrades. They get nowhere near as much support as a regular Linux laptop (which is what schools SHOULD be using) and even less than Windows laptops pre-11, but if they're being replaced every 3 years, that's just policy, not an actual need. Currently the oldest supported iPad is going to hit 8 years since release in a month. The newest unsupported one is going to hit 9 in a month. So yes there's forced upgrades, but that's in like 8 years.
  I work as a software engineer and most companies have had a minimum 3 year lifetime policy for company laptops. Reasoning being, after 3 years there's a higher chance of failure, and there have been enough advancements in hardware that upgrading might save SOME dev time. If it fails before 3 years, you get a new one. If you want to keep it longer, you can keep it. But if you want a new one, it should be 3 years old first. I don't get why school iPads need to be replaced this often, but I reckon there might be a lot more wear and tear and THAT could be the reason for a 3 year replacement policy. It's simpler than just replacing individual units every now and then.
  
  I have taught math for 4 years in my local school. The iPads were used by the 3rd and 4th grade students. And they never left the classrooms and were well supervised during use.
  Starting in 5th grade, they were issued Chromebooks. Google Classroom was used for assignments and other communications. And since Mommy and Daddy had to pay for them IF they were damaged, they held up quite well. The IBM Education model is very robust. Not fast, but robust.
- Yea generally electronics is depreciated every 3 to 5 years. But I can imagine that after 3 years of children usage they are done for. That aside though, I think what you would be more looking for is a fair tax system.
  What I think that the problem with local property taxes is that if a city relies on it too much to pay for everything then this causes too many issues. For a poor city this could mean that if they don't increase the taxes they can't afford basic school care which people expect. So they moved to riched areas who can provide that. Or they move because of the higher taxes. This in turn lowers the property value and decreases the taxes further. Which in turn increases the problem.
  So I believe the educational budget should be provided by the central government so the same kind of quality in schools is given nationwide. This can of course be applied to other costs a city is making.
  In addition to this I think a property tax should be progressive and link to your overall assets. If you just own one house and you don't have any more assets. Then why should you be taxed as much as somebody who owns a lot more (of course if the house is 2m and you're living of social security it is a different story. L
  
  Top down education doesn't work, that's how we get stuck with schools that have massive IT budgets with little to show for them. Most teachers don't use anything beyond spreadsheets and Youtube.
  I don't think that there is an easy fix.
  I'd like to think local autonomy would help, so small communities could design their own curriculum, but I'm too much of a pessimist and see such experiments failing quickly because of corruption and incompetence.
  
  Yea generally electronics is depreciated every 3 to 5 years.
  Not really.
  But I can imagine that after 3 years of children usage they are done for. That aside though
  It'd be cheaper to protect the devices with cases and screen protectors.

So he bought a house for 6k 50 years go and now has to pay 2k in property taxes each year. If he was renting that wouldn't cover two months.
Does he also complain that the sales tax on candy bar is more than he used to pay for a candy bar when he first bought his house?
- "I don't understand how inflation works and I'm blaming government for it"
  
  If the property tax scales with inflation and social security is also adjusted for inflation, but your property tax is getting more expensive relative to your social security income, something's not right.
- The real problem if that's the scenario is that his social security check is less than $400/month.
  
  Its almost 2000
- You have to think more like Trump, LOL. The rich don't pay any taxes through the use of loopholes. Why should you. Slum lords should be forced to pay taxes, not working class schmo that needs a roof over their heads. Tax the slum lords.
- I went and argued my taxes at my annual township tax assessment meeting. I was being assessed for a new deck and ramp. That added about $200 to my taxes. What I did do was move the wheelchair ramp out away from the house a bit for better winter time safety and repaired the steps, ramp boards, and railings.
  Should I have been taxed for a whole new deck and ramp when I just did repairs and made safety changes?

This isn't a discussion on property tax, it's more about social security. There is no reason we cannot scale taxes/fines to income. Many countries pull this off...
- bUt tHeN nO oNe wOuLd bE iNcEnTiViSeD tO wOrK oR bEcOmE wEaLtHy
- We would need to make sure all loopholes are closed for wealthy people just using investments to harvest losses... Trump only needed to pay $750 in taxes on his "taxable" income one year.

My dad literally went to the city and argued against them raising the book value of his home, which would cause him to have to pay more in property tax.
He won too.
That loon.
- You certainly can argue about your property taxes and win concessions if you have a good reason. It's not hard to do. You just need to get off your ass and attend the annual tax assessment meeting.
  It's why that annual meeting exists.
  
  I had no idea that was a thing.... Mainly because it's never been relevant to me..... At least, until recently.
  Thanks for the info.
- Did he go to city council chambers, or did he just vaguely go into the city itself and start arguing with people?
  
  I was not provided details as to what he did to argue it, or who he spoke to.
  .... That being said, I don't think it was the latter example you gave

They dangle the carrot of "home ownership" as if anyone ever owns a home that can be taken away for not paying taxes.
- TBH, property taxes could be a necessary evil, like only imposing them above a certain number of owned homes, to curb some companies buying up homes en masse to control the rent market, but I have a weird feeling they might not be the ones paying these taxes.
  
  Lots of countries have property taxes that are more reasonable because they focus on city services like trash pickup and stuff. The problem is property taxes are tied to education in the US and in many states the higher the property taxes the better the schools, the more exclusive the neighborhood, etc.
  
  Agreed with # of homes owned as well as square footage/meters. A mansion should be hit hard by taxes.
- I don't think taxes negate ownership.
  If you rent you need permission for every modification, every pet, even for something like planting a garden.
  Ownership can be conditional; you can own a domain, but if you don't pay the renewal fee it can be taken away; you can own a car, but if you drive it without paying your registration it can be impounded; you can own a business, but if you don't pay your license renewal it can be revoked.
  Owning something doesn't mean it can never be taken away or that you don't need to do anything to keep it.
  
  Property taxes also aren't egregious if you don't live in an expensive house in an expensive area.
  The problem is that most of ya'll have been conditioned to think "that's not good enough for you" even when you can't afford more. Then entitlement kicks in where you think you deserve more before others who have less and before you know it, Bernie loses the nomination and we're stuck with a trump presidency.
  
  your interpretation of the concept of ownership practically renders the word meaningless.
  to most people it does in fact mean that it can't normally be taken away, even though such a thing might be physically or legally possible.

Property tax is the big thing that forces people to engage with capitalism against their will.
Without property tax, you could live off-grid for eternity. But with property tax, you always have to earn money, and the people that control that money therefore control you.
- without property tax, all land would be owned by corporations whether or not they planned on using it ever….
  but an individual living on a property shouldn’t have to pay property tax on their home.
  the guy in the picture could have 100 acre of unused land he’s holding on to, too….
  another fun one is some cities will seize your property for being $1 off on your property tax payments.
  
  He could also just be in an area that was decently outside a major metro area when he bought his house, and urban sprawl and real estate speculation has massively raised the value of his property.
  When my parents bought my childhood home in the 80s, the road ended about a mile down from the house and they had to park at the lake and carry things up. There's a hunting preserve just on the other side of the train tracks to the north, and when I was growing up, farms with cows, horses, and a shitload of corn.
  These days, I don't know anyone I grew up with who can afford to live there any more, as it's become yet another commuter town in the country for the higher paid employees in the nearest major city. When they sold the house, I'm pretty sure it had to be knocked down completely (we had squirrels in the walls, and the previous owner had done a hack job on the electrical wiring to convert it from a summer cottage to a full-time residence) yet a half acre of land and a house you couldn't legally sell for occupation was still close to $500,000.
  I can actually rent a two bedroom apartment in NYC for less than it would cost me to rent a studio in my home town, which has no public transport, and it was a two mile walk to the nearest gas station, one way.
  It's kind of messed up that entire communities can be destroyed, through nothing they actually did and developments they had no way of predicting 40 years ago.
- Outside of fantasy no that is just nonsense
- You'd have to earn the money to purchase your off-grid setup in the first place.

While I do think there should be some relief for some people as far as property taxes are concerned... living in a town or city gives a person access to many local government subsided services. Firefighters, and ambulances are some simple ones that everyone uses. Roads as well. And the cost of that does increase over time. Basing a person's contributions to paying for that based on the value of thier property is just easier for local governments, and more stable. But it doesn't really corelate with the use of those services. Nor with income or ability to pay.
Life necessities really shouldn't be taxed at most levels. Food, shelter, water, heat, medical care. Most already aren't. But housing still is. Investment properties should be taxed of course, but an average primary residence really shouldn't be.
- Looking at my electrical bill is depressing. It's always power used x and then taxes that are the same as x plus fees. So using $100 in electricity means I pay $220 with over half being taxes and extra fees
- Yeah, and property taxes result in more low density housing, as that increases the amount of tax revenue per person. High density housing means less revenue per person but the costs of services per person is still about the same. Sure theoretically, public transit is cheaper per person with high density housing, but realistically it isn't because nobody gives a shit about public transit in the suburbs.
  Of course there's more costs overall because more suburbs mean governments are pressured to spend insane amounts of money on building and expanding highways. But it's usually a different level of government that builds the highways, so doesn't factor in the decisions to create more low density housing.
  
  I've read otherwise on the costs of services per person and density. A fire station can only reasonably cover a certain amount of space. So low density housing means you need more fire stations for the same amount of people. And of course you need more road per person in general.

Comparing property taxes now in 2025 dollars to unadjusted original cost in 1950 dollars is nonsensical. The two numbers bear no relation nor should they.
The average social security check is $1,978 a month or $23,736 per annum. Half of that is $11,868. Lets suppose he lives in CA where the annual rate for owner occupied is 0.74%. His house would be worth approx 1.6 million dollars. To to be clear he is whining about paying the appropriate and legal tax on his fully owned 1.6M cash hoard. This is a great problem to have.
If its that burdensome he can cash out and even with rent payments for the rest of his life live great even if he has no other savings of any sort.
Looks like about $5800 a month gradually increasing with inflation for at least 25 years.
If he has another $400,000 which seems super likely since I don't think he's actually living in his 1.6M house on $12,000 a year it could be more than 7500 a month.
If we add a little realism and only include another 15 years he could probably actually withdraw about 11,000 a month.
https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/social-security/average-monthly-social-security-check https://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state
- I think it's the moral issue of having to cash out your own property to afford to live in something you built and already own
  
  Property tax funds important things like schools, emergenct services, etc.
  if he was destitute otherwise would already have sold it. You are arguing in favor of a tax break for some rich prick probably worth north of 3 million not paying the taxes that pay for your kid to get a decent education because basically feels.
  Its no more immoral than you giving up your income.
  
  Seconded. This is inaccessible net worth. It is useless to someone who cannot take advantage of it. Sale would incur capital gains, which would be significant, and finding another property to live in would be just as unaffordable.
- Lets suppose he lives in CA where the annual rate for owner occupied is 0.74%. His house would be worth approx 1.6 million dollars.
  That's largely due to the property inflation from the tech sector and not consistent across the state. You could be in San Fransisco and see your land 10x in value as the city explodes around you or you could be at the ass end of Oakland or the rural east end and still live in a slum.
  This guy could also be from Texas - in the exurbs of Austin, Dallas, Houston, or El Paso - and be looking at closer to 1.5-2% annual rates. Very possible he acquired some dirt cheap land in Beaumont or Bexar County only to see his $5k plot balloon to $100-200k over the course of 20 years.
  
  Either way for California he wouldn't be affected because Californiamnproperty taxes are effectively snapshotted at time of purchase and grandfathered for people like him. If he truly bought or built 50 years ago and ows it outright then prop 13 has long capped what he pays decades ago.
  People like him, in California, are subsidized by the modern generation who don't get capped by prop 13. And when he sells that house it's value gets assessed at current market value and full taxes are due from the buyer.
  Put shortly, his story is likely bullshit if he's from California. And people without houses and salty about it need to do some research.
  
  If this was so it wouldn't be half his ss in property taxes. Average ss is 1900 a month

I would be more okay with property tax, IF once you reached a certain age (or disabled), you were not required to pay property tax.
- Yes, we can cover the resulting tax shortfall by increasing the tax on single mothers, first-generation low-income homebuyers, and renters.
  Look at the result of California's tax policy (which was designed with aims similar to yours): an entire generation of young people will never be able to afford a home in the place they grew up in, while millionaire retirees get a huge tax break while making thousands renting out spare rooms in their massive houses on AirBnB.
  These kinds of special tax carve outs sound nice in theory, because it seems like you are just "not taking money from old and disabled people", but that tax burden falls on everyone else, as does the massive distortion of the market. You are in fact taking more money from other people, who may be hurting even more.
  And don't tell me, "We'll fund it by a tax on the rich". If that's your proposal, get that tax on the rich passed, and dole out the proceeds to elderly at risk of homelessness. Have it officially be budgeted, so that we can decide if keeping an elderly person in their $2.1m 5 bedroom home is worth cuts elsewhere. As of now, such policies are mostly robbing middle class young people blind.
  
  Solution build excess housing at a loss, intentionally until real estate prices go down.
  
  I'm gonna have to agree with you here.
  There's a better special tax carve out: Don't require tax for the primary residence. The owner MUST be registered as living at that address. Not a family member. The owner.
  Okay if you have family you can have a few more homes, but realistically, if you own 10 or 20 homes, how many people can you REALLY trust to have full ownership of them instead of you? You're going to have to start paying tax at some point.
- at the primary residence up to .25 acres. Anything more than that should be taxed as normal. Credits should be non transferrable, as in if you're renting your landlord shouldn't be able to claim you for tax exempt status.
  
  Farms & ranches would have to be exempt. There are some cases where it's legit important to have a large land area.
  
  .25 acres? Can we up that to at least an acre. I need a place for my chickens to roam and to plant my gardens, and I prefer to have a fire pit with outdoor patio furniture and a grill. Many places an acre is the standard plot size. Not good for everyone, but preferred by many

And this is why in most civilized countries, progressive income taxes make up the majority of the government budget. Basing taxes on non income/investment related metrics screws over the poor + lower middle class. It's a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
- This doesn't fit the narrative, but a lot of American states have lower effective property tax rates than European nations. There exceptions on both ends of this of course (like TX which is making up for a lack of income taxes).
  People should look them up and compare European nations to major us cities and states. Europe ends up with not only higher income taxes, but also higher property taxes overall. And a completely insane financing method like having adjustable rate mortgages being normal, locked only for a period of 3 to 5 years before basically being forced to refinance. Little wonder that property ownership rates are generally so far below american ownership rates.
  No system is perfect and people with means tend to find every flaw in them (and plant those flaws if they are wealthy enough). But people really need to remember that the grass is always greener because of all the manure.
  
  And that man clearly does not live in such a state, nor did I (or anyone else I think) claim that his circumstances apply to the entire usa. You're wrong in assuming that other people are not aware that different places have varying laws and tax systems.
  Your whataboutism defence of regressive tax systems is also very strange to me. That other places have unfair practices in place, is no excuse to put up with an unfair system in any one place. Call them all out on their brokeness, but if you do call them out, you'll have to be more specific in your example(s), state things that are actually verifiable instead of some vague whataboutism.
  Ps, while I did not think your whataboutism defence was relevant, this "Little wonder that property ownership rates are generally so far below american ownership rates." was easy to verify and it turned out to be false. Home ownership rates are on average slightly higher in Europe than in the usa, here's statistics: https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
- you could have progressive taxes on wealth as well. there's a difference between having one house worth 500k and having 500 million in shares
  
  True, you just need to make sure you start high enough up, or exempt the value of a primary residence (maybe limit the exemption to a non-opulent value of a house so the richest don't start building castles to bind their money tax free)
- UK has property taxes too and its pretty shit tbh. Council tax, there are bands based on what your house was worth in the 90s (yes really...) and generally the poor will pay a higher % of their income. I have a pretty small bungalow, 60m². One of the lowest bands and pay £1600 a year on a house that cost £230k. The most you can have to pay is £4200, beyond that point regardless of how much more expensive your house is the tax rate doesn't increase.
  The original plan of the tax was a fixed rate per person. This among other things is why many people were keen on the idea of digging a hole so deep that we could hand Thatcher over to Satan personally.
  
  That has to be the most regressive tax I've heard of in western Europe. Absolutely excessive and I'm sorry it's happening to you.
  Belgium has a home value tax as well, based on fictional rental income + a very convoluted calculation + different % surcharges per council. I find back that it's on average about 700 to 800 euros per Flemish adult person, but it has large variations. It causes a lot of grumbling, but for most people it's not considered excessive.
- Why have taxes based on income when you can tax accumulated capital instead?
  
  Taxing liquid capital is fairly straightforward, especially if it's tied to income (like company founders owning shares).
  Taxing non-liquid assets is complicated because it's hard to make it fair in cases of family home inheritance and similar situations.
  But taxing use of assets as collateral for loans (to create liquidity from a non-liquid asset) should be reasonably fair, it can be treated as an advance on capital gains taxes on the collateralized asset.
  
  If you try to take too many eggs out of 1 basket, the person carrying that basket is likely to try and run away. So it's easier and less disruptive to take a few eggs out of lots of different baskets.
  Taxing accumulated capital without exceptions is also guaranteed to screw people over. The man in the OP is a good example: he's a modest man who many years ago bought a modest house for a modest sum of money. Due to circumstances, that house has now increased in value, making him a wealthy man on paper. But he's deriving no income from that wealth, since he can't rent it out because he lives in it himself. So now he's a modest man, who is rich on paper, who is expected to pay high taxes on his paper wealth, turning him into a poor man who is barely scraping by.

To be fair this dude could have gotten his house 45 years ago for 50K. So adjusting for inflation and overall development of his area, it could make sense. Comparing current payments to cost of money 40 years ago is comparing apples to oranges.
Now all that being said....there is a serious issue with cost and availability of housing, and I am not dismissing that. I'm just saying context is needed for this ragebait post.

I don’t understand inflation, so as an old landowner I think I shouldn’t have to pay taxes.
- Property taxes do hit retired people differently though. Taxing based on what the government says your land is worth instead of your income is absolutely meant to create opportunities for real estate agents and developers at the expense of the people living there.
  
  Taxes based on assets tax those with assets, instead of income taxes which tax those who work.
  If old man owns such a valuable piece of land, he deserves to pay his fair share for the public services he used.
  It’s like saying you don’t want to pay for schools because you’re not a student.
- It is kinda fucked up if retired are forced to move out from their house via taxation. Only ones who benefits are real estate companies
  
  That’s the fictional boogeyman used by the rich to gut public services. See the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer association and California prop 13.
  The tax cuts go to the rich and corporate land owners.
- Its always guys that look like they extract peyote in their kitchen.
  
  What's wrong with that?
  Edit: despite that peyote shouldn't be just gathered on the wild, because they're protected

There are a lot of people suffering right now to the extent that his plight seems so frivolous.
I'll bet hes a republican voting for deficit which results in raised taxes on people like himself and cuts for people far richer than him.
- 🤣 the fact that he's lying about how much he pays in taxes to reduce taxes might be a clue.

i mean, this is less of a property tax issue and more of a social security thing.
Though i am pretty fundamentally against property tax, it's a physical thing that i can own, i don't see why i should pay taxes on it. If you want to tax me just hit me with income tax.
- income tax.
  the wealthy dodge this by a bunch of schemes that don't count as 'income'.
  I hate paying property tax, but reckon it's the only way to get money out of the fortunate ones that are lucky enough to own a chunk.
  
  And the bigger the chunk, the more they owe.
  
  It's pretty easy to dodge property taxes also.
- It's a wealth tax on wealth that's very difficult to hide.
- Property has infrastructure like water, roads, electrical, sewers, etc running to it that needs to be maintained. It also has things like fire fighting police surveyors etc that need to be paid in order to maintain society. Everyone could work in a city therefore the city/county/state would collect the income tax but the local town you live in doesn't get any of that money.
  
  Roads that are too big, house that are too spread out.
  Police because stores refuse to hire their own security and offload it to onto your property tax.
  Sewers because dumb people are too stupid to compost properly, and now we need chemicals on farm fields since the traditional method of composting is dead.
  Garbage trucks and landfills because companies sell you wrappers and containers that outlive the products and are made from toxic waste.
- Cause you don't own it. You are borrowing it from the government.
- People need to stop thinking about property like it's any other regular thing like a vehicle.
  Land is not a thing it is a limited resource.
  If someone owns a piece of land in a city it doesn't matter what they are currently doing with it, even if they do nothing with it, that's wasting potential that someone else could be doing with it and affects everyone around that piece of land.

Sorry, oh the irony is rich.

That's the thing about increasing home prices nobody talks about. It increases the "value" of your home, so you're taked more.
When my parents retired, they didn't move out to the country to get away from the city life. They did it because it saved them 40 grand a year in property taxes.
- Depending on area 40k property tax means a 3-4M house. Poor rich people!
  
  The house was about 180 when they bought it, then climbed in value over time to the point they had to move due to taxes. The combination of city, county, 2 separate MUDs, school, ESD, health district, and other taxes didn't help either.
  The school taxes alone were nearly 2% of the value of their home. When your home quaruples in valueshoppingthe area around you gets ritzy, that adds up.
- Where the fuck did they live? What was the home value and tax rate? That's insane.
  
  It's really not that crazy in some areas.
  They had municipal taxes, county taxes, school district taxes (when massive school bonds pass every single year without fail that one can really add up), emergency service district taxes, Water District taxes, Healthcare District taxes.
  That shit adds up when the value of your property doubles every 3 years like it has been doing in Texas.
- That's the part that upsets me the most. If you save up the money to fix up your house, the gov charges you more for it. How aggregating. Makes me not want to "own" property.

- Do you live in Michigan or is there somewhere else that was this idiotic too?
- I think you may have it wrong on what is happening, this guy isn't paying less tax than those around him from how i read it. Your area seems to be taxed based on the purchase price and not the assessed value of the property.
  From how i read it his taxes have steadily gone up base on home prices and assessments. He pays taxes every year and they are relatively the same as those around him. The problem is that the value has gone up more than it should have due to the local gov wanting to be paid more. Most county commissioners (R/D doesn't matter) are paid a percentage of what the property tax based on population. This means that if the price goes up then they get paid more. At times these also come from the state instead of a county. This means that they reps are paid based on the tax assessment.
  If we make the math easy lets say he paid $30,000 for his house. (I know a city wont be this way but a small house in a rural area works for this also lets assume it was purchased some time ago). The current (as of today) monthly average of Social Security payments is $1976. ($23,712 yearly) This is about $70,000 every 3 years. $70,000/2 is $35,000. Again those payments are based on today and not the last few two years. Based on that math, SS 1976 x 12 (year) $23,712 divided by 2 (half my ss check) thats $11,856. He is essentially being taxed 30% of what he purchased his home for. I know this may not sound like much to some but its not about you in the city working the full time job for x an hour. This post is about a guy who built his home and purchased the lumber piece by piece and built it himself after purchasing the land.
  
  No, the person you're replying to likely lives in an area with annual assessment limits. This means when they move into their house, they pay taxes on the assessed amount at that time. Every year, even if the assessment shows a 50% increase in value, your tax increase will be capped at something like a 2% increase. Over the course of 30 years this adds up to huge tax savings the longer you stay in one place. The downsides are that it causes more traffic, causes homes to sell less often, and provides less local tax to fund public programs like schools.
  
  This guy's actual problem isn't that his property taxes have gone way up. His problem is that his income, that is say social security, has not kept pace with the inflated cost of property taxes. And of course it hasn't kept up with any of the other inflationary costs we are dealing with today as well. And this is something that has hit everyone else because the average wage has not kept up with inflation either.

Remember - america is not a country, it's a business.
If you can't make it - noone gonna do shit

For many states property taxes are the majority of funding for public schools. If that's the case for the pictured person, the sign could also read:
"I got my public education for free from age 5-18 funded from others paying property taxes including learning how to read and write to make this sign you're reading. Now that I've received that free public education and benefited from it, I'm not interested in paying for any kids to be educated using my dollars. F you, I got mine."
- We could also just pay for education differently.
  
  Yes and. How most of the US funds their school system is super fucked up. Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers. This translates to much more equal levels of education, regardless of how wealthy a given neighborhood may be. I was shocked to find out that schools are paid for by catchment area taxes in must of the states - it makes the history of redlining so obvious when the is literally a "wing side of the tracks".
  
  I love the "but it pays for schools" argument, like how about we drop 3 less bombs per year and just pay for all the schools out of the existing tax pool like it should be.
  
  property tax is more equitable than sales tax because it is based on wealth instead of consumption.
  
  Until we do, we can't stop the current funding source. Feel free to present your argument on your proposed alternate method.

California disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Property tax is assessed when there's a sale, and otherwise changes very slowly. It's a controversial measure.
- Which induces a lot of absentee landlordism, as property is held in trust and financialized rather than being bought/sold at the retail level.
  
  Right, that's a huge downside for sure.
  Property tax is on the one hand a wealth tax, which sounds like a great idea; but on the other hand, it's a wealth tax that disproportionately affects people with the bulk of their assets tied up in real estate --- which often means middle class homeowners.
  So while you can certainly look at prop 13 as "good" in that folks don't get priced out of their existing homes, it of course gets used to the advantage of rent seekers, etc.
  It's...complicated.

I don't know his situation but I think primary residence up to certain value shouldn't be taxed at all. There's a huge difference between an old man living alone in a house he had built for his family 60 years ago and an "investor" who owns entire neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, where I live a property tax on as far as I remember 4th and all above residential properties has been proposed and people who oppose it the most are pensioners who live in the only property they own. Right wing media can just outright lie to people telling them the tax is going to be on every property and people go on vote against their own interests.
- Agreed. I'd vote to drop property tax for those over 65 and under a certain income limit.
  
  tying it to income means in a few decades inflation just shrinks the number of people who can actually benefit
  If you own one residential property and also live in it, no taxes on that. Multiple properties? That's taxes. Unfortunately, most primary education is funded by property tax, so you'd have to change how that works (and maybe actually pay teachers while your at it). Fortunately, none of this has any chance of ever getting implemented.

How big is his house? How much is it worth now?
How much did he pay for the land it sits on? Or did he inherit that?
Who does he think maintains road networks and all the other infrastructure he relies on?
- How big is his house? How much is it worth now?
  Property taxes are based on the assessed value of the land. So if you bought vacant land in the 1970s, improved it with a home, and then lived in it for the next 50 years, you'd see a piece of land that sold for several thousand dollars accrue to hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this guy is living in Texas, he's likely paying 1-2% of the assessed value of the home, which could easily be north of $2-4k/year. That's on land that was practically being given away half a century earlier.
  Who does he think maintains road networks and all the other infrastructure he relies on?
  The tax rate is fully disconnected from the cost of construction/maintenance. So if my house accrues from $50k to $200k over the course of ten years, I don't see 4x as much construction/maintenance of my local infrastructure. I just see my tax bill go up 4x while my potholes continue to go unfilled, my lines unburied, and my flood control underdeveloped.
  And that's setting aside the habit of municipal governments to invest in "improvements" (sports stadiums, convention centers, police surveillance that's focused around corporate properties, twelve lane highways that induce demand rather than improve traffick flow) that benefit private industry over public welfare. City and state officials serving larger and larger constituencies routinely become disconnected from lay voters and increasingly complicit in graft and other kickbacks, as elections revolve more around partisan affiliation than any actual domestic management agenda.
  There is a very real and meaningful disconnect between what politicians do at the municipal/state level and what residents actually demand at the retail level. If this guy was perched in a penthouse overlooking Cowboy's stadium, you could reasonably tell him to fuck off. But I guarantee he's not.
- allowed to take surplus tax,
  He's likely towing the Libertarian party line. We'd be fine without these taxes and all that government waste.
  When you start asking about public services, they start, slowly, carefully re-inventing taxes while downplaying corporate greed while putting themselves in a decision-making role where they get to decide what is right for everyone else.
  I'm sure he can hardly afford to live in his ancestral home. That SS he paid into all those years doesn't hit the same as a paycheck and might stop altogether soon. If you don't squirrel away your own retirement, you have to make concessions.
- While these are fair questions, I think it's a reasonable stance to take that you shouldn't literally get taxed out of your home if you come into poverty, which unfortunately can include Social Security recipients. I know we all need to pay taxes and contribute to society to the extent that we're reasonably able to, but I'm not so sure this is the best way to make it happen. For property beyond your primary residence, sure, but for your only home, I don't super like it.
  
  If your home is now worth millions, you're now rich and can afford the taxes. If you have no income, sell the house. If you want to live in it, do a reverse mortgage. If you want to pass on your house to your heirs, creating generational wealth while not paying your share of taxes now, fuck you, pay up.

Surely this man would be in favor of a greater and graduated state income tax then, right?
...right?

Property tax rates are based on how much your city/county needs to operate. Property values change, but so do mill rates. Most cities aren't allowed to take surplus tax, so they tweak the mill rate when property values fluctuate.
- The government gets to decide how much the government is allowed to fuck you. Seems fair.
  
  Theoretically, in a democracy, we ARE the government.

Property taxes go towards education. More right-wing bullshit attacking schools.
- But this is a bad idea.
  Areas with high property value have higher quality schooling. Area with low property value have lower quality schooling. The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor.
  Maybe education money shouldn't come from property taxes. Maybe corporations should pay for the education they require their workers to have visa corporate taxes
  
  Generally the best option is for all property taxes for education to go into one pot to by divided up fairly across all school districts in the state, that way wealthy areas don't end up with over funded schools while rural areas and poor areas get poorly funded schools
- Then why do the schools in my town look like they're from 1970 and never updated. Over 10k in property taxes here.
  Edit. I'm all for giving my property taxes to help make kids smarter but it doesn't seem like it's working

Interesting. In Texas once you hit 65 they freeze your property taxes and no longer increase it. My parents are only paying $1,800/year on a $250K house. Meanwhile I’m paying $14,000/yr on a $500K house.
- If you live FULL TIME in Florida there is a cap on property tax increases. Many people in Florida own homes but do not live here full time and therefore are not eligible for this protection against increases. But they don't have an age limit that ends all increases.
  
  Sounds like it’s working as intended to target snow birds or landlords owning multiple properties
- Sorry how much??? I think we pay like 7/800€ property tax yearly on a house worth about 400k€... I thought US had low taxes.
  
  Americans actually pay a higher effective tax rate than in civilized countries, while receiving fewer services in return.
  Only the very weathy have a lower effective rate because they use discretionary spending to purchase lax tax laws.
  America is a shit hole country in deep deep denial.
  
  Low income taxes. And our sales tax is typically lower than European VAT when the comparison is valid. But those generally go to the feds and the state, that do not fund municipal services, so municipalities have to collect the remainder they need through property taxes, typically on real estate and cars. And none of them fund healthcare, so we have to pay a company premiums for that. Basically the same for higher education. When you look at our total financial burden to receive the kind of services that are funded by taxes in other developed countries, we can be deceptively expensive, especially if you start thinking about the comparative quality of those services. But our income and capital gains tax rates are low, especially if you are very rich! I made myself sad
  
  My state doesn’t have any income tax. So it’s offset with higher property taxes. Other states have lowe me property taxes but have an income tax.

Here in the United States, this issue and this sign are advocating for what? This man is where? At his county commissioner meeting? This sign implies we want the federal government in our local tax policy? I mean really? GTFO with this garbage. Stay the F out of my busniess, if I don't like property tax, that comes with my local vote, and has nothing to do with the federal government. I could bet someone paid this tool to stand with this sign because someone who doesn't understand decentralized local government power wants to make a point about something that has nothing to do with social security.
- This sign implies we want the federal government in our local tax policy?
  Where do you read this implication from?
  I'm really asking because I might be missing something, because my background is so different.
  To me it reads like he thinks local taxes should work differently, either be lower, or be raised based on a different factor other than property value. But I can't see the federal connection.
- Or it could be argued that the local county or city is taxing them so much they can't survive and they are essentially taking federal money even though they claim to not need federal money.
  But hey I'm just a guy who knows plenty of people who look like this who advocate for better social programs. In most places that have county commissioners, their salary is paid by a percentage of the property tax. This may explain the increase in tax or the increase in allowing too many high density locations that have a property tax associated with them.

Property taxes always made me think that you don't actually own it, rather its a different form of rent based on property value. I know its the not the same as renting as you have stored value if you sell, but its difficult to call it "ownership"

I think an issue is that taxes are not seen for what they are. The government and agency work on our behalf but don't get paid until I pay my taxes. Maybe the local government just needs to send these bills to people's houses instead and get rid of taxes altogether.
- I disagree that it's an issue. I believe vast majority of people understand what a tax is, even if they feel taxes are shitty and respond with blame-y frustration. All words will be misunderstood by some people. Sometimes more and sometimes fewer. If we kept changing the name of things because a vocal minority of people can't read a dictionary, then we will end up with a handful of generic words that don't actually mean anything. I believe a better solution is to envest in education more broadly.
  
  Something I'm beginning to learn is that what I thought was originally the minority is actually the majority and vice versa

Is this guy paid by some rich guys wanting to abolish property taxes?

Here the increases are capped at 3% per year if you live in the house. I lived in a shitty house we bought for 35k in the 1990s crash, and property taxes when we sold it in the breakup 20 years later were still under 1k a year, though insurance was crazy high. With husband we had to buy a much more expensive house, there are no shitty ones for sale anymore, all are snatched by corps to flip and rent. So now it's high but in 20 years maybe it will seem low again. Especially if the market crashes and it's re-assessed more reasonably.
It's just inflation, I do think someone owning a home costs the city in roads, trash, transit, other services, Is not crazy to tax on property ownership.
- Inflation is also not what the guy with the sign is taking into account in his complaint. He’s at least 40 years older in that picture than he was when he bought his property if he’s getting social security. The real purchasing power of whatever he paid back then is much smaller than the same number of dollars is now.
  $5000 in January 1985 would be the same as $15,055.50 now according to the inflation calculator on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website
  Also, it’s only every three years that he’s paying that much. Honestly, he’s not making the point he thinks he is.
  We need taxes to fund emergency services and local government in general. The problem isn’t that taxes go up in dollar amount. The problem is that the 1% take everything for themselves, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs. Our pay and public benefits (like social security) don’t rise with inflation because of the actions of the rich.
  The solution is so obvious, but we spend so much time arguing about everything but the real problem.
  
  Yeah, if you are comparing the house you bought in 1980 for 10k dollars and say you pay 5k in tax every three years, using 2025 dollars then that is totally useless as a statement.
- I wonder if there should be an exemption for those on Social Security.
  That said, I don't know of a good way to ensure that an exemption like that wouldn't be abused.
  
  My city has a senior discount on property taxes, where seniors that have a net worth and income both below certain numbers pay reduced or as low as 0% of their regularly assessed property tax. I'm not sure how they verify net worth, but it seems like a good system to me as long as they have figured out a way to do that efficiently and effectively
  
  I think most places have a senior freeze, so once you qualify it doesn't go up anymore.

I see both arguments for this as valid. I get that you wanna stay and live your entire life in the place you owned forever. The reality is taxes are needed and will increase forever, which are important to keeping your state functioning (as long as the people in charge are doing a good job and actually using the funds wisely). I wonder what state they are from because I know property tax can be wildly different depending upon that. I'm sure they don't want to, but there are like 6 states that currently offer no property tax to seniors over 65 and 10 that offer exemptions based on income and age. At the same time it is good to see them complain because maybe they can try to sway the state to also offer the no property tax benefit to seniors as well. Still if he is hurting that much, then it's probably easier to sell the place and move to another place that will allow him to be better off with less worrying. It's a valid option even if he doesn't agree with it.
- his point is that his income should have increased to reflect inflation, since his taxes did. it's actually obscene that half his check goes to property tax on land he's had forever, and people are talking down about him for it.
  
  Yeah, that makes much more sense. I absolutely agree, sadly most places draw the line on ever allowing that to happen. Although I do remember reading that some states have minimum wage tied to it which was pretty shocking, despite making perfect sense.
- I'm not going to offer numbers and percentages but I would propose an overall cap on state property taxes. That would force the state to spend less or finally get rid of funding for things that are not providing the desired results. I would shift the percentage of property tax levied more on commercial than residential. And finally I would have a lower rate for those who own the house and live there as opposed to an owner who is renting out the house.

I was wondering if the US is property taxes were like 33%/year but it said original value, so I'm guessing it was dirt cheap then
- when that guy was 25, house prices were probably in the $20k for a good house. If he built it, even cheaper. He's equating two things that don't really have relevance to anything but his memory
  he's also not taking advantage of his options for being a senior on fixed income nor did he prepare for his retirement properly if all he has is social security
  
  I get what you're saying.
  But the last half of that last sentence reads "poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor".
- My parents bought a house for $14k in the mid 70s.
- Yea, it's super location dependant. Generally the more rural the lower the taxes. But it also varies by state. States with low or no income tax tend to have higher property tax.

The Guardian just did an article on this subject
Link

I can't even afford a dingy studio where I'm at... tf

Do the American thing and chuck it in the harbor until the taxes stop
- If tea is to tea party, are you suggesting that we throw a house party?

Interesting use of quotes. I wonder how it was "paid for"
- I think he means that he paid for it, but never truly owns it when your forced to pay tax or they take your house away.
  
  If you want to get reductive, you never truly own it even if you live in a society where there is no tax.
  The rule of law that allows the concept of private ownership to be upheld in society runs on tax dollars. If you take away all of the tax dollars, the mechanisms that define and enforce the rule of law go with it.
  In a completely tax free society someone can just kick in your door of your house and shoot you, and now they own your house. Who will stop the thief/murderer? There's no police, no courts, no judges, no jails. If instead of an individual its a foreign nation, there's no military to defend your nation's borders. All of that comes from tax dollars. So even then you never really own your own house because someone can take it (and your life) away from you.
- Old people tend to use quotation marks as emphasis.

Property tax hurts landlords and I'm here for that.
What did this guy pay for his house, like 20k?
- I'm really trying to reconcile how the Chinese manage a more equal society while having a fraction of the tools we do; they don't have property taxes, just a lease you renew every ~70 years, they can't do QE like we do.
  It's like we have all the tools to delay the trajectory of capitalism, we just choose not to use it.
  
  So you never own your house in China, is what I'm reading in your post.

I wish someone had told me this 4 years ago…

Yeah, that guy could sell his house for 5 times what he built it for
- 5? I bought my house a decade ago and it has almost doubled. If he built his house for less than his current property taxes, he would easily get 10x if not higher.
  
  the sign says that property tax each year is a third of his original house cost. Assume he lives in a place with insane 15% property tax:
  x0.153=1
  x=36
  x=18
  His house is worth 18x or more what he paid to build it.
- And then where is going to afford to buy another house to live in?
  
  Maybe he should stop eating avocado toast

If his math is right, and assuming that his property tax is about 1-2% of his home's value per year, then the value of his home has increased about 15-30x the original value.
Its hard to be sympathetic.
- It's difficult to be sympathetic because you are viewing the property as an asset financially. And not as a place to live, he likely does not give a shit that it's appreciated in value because he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of selling and he plans to live there till he dies and that's how housing should be viewed
  
  Thank you. Not everything in life is an asset to be leveraged to prop up your own position above those around you.
  This psychotic way of thinking has led us to this sorry state. And I don't just mean the USA.
  
  I agree with your sentement but sometimes places become gentrified and the original inhabitants can no longer afford to live there.
  I'm not saying that it's good or the way things should be but it is a reality.

If you learn skills such as how to fix shit yourself, owning a house is very obtainable.
- Probably harder to build than just fixing an existing house, but do you...
- The average household income where I live is ~$80k. Excluding the top 5%, it drops to ~$50k. That’s (on average) two full-time workers per household, each making ~$12/hour. Their annual (pre-tax) income would be about $480 per week, or ~$2080 per month each. After taxes, that would be closer to $1450. So likely around $3000 for the household’s monthly budget.
  The cheapest homes near me start at $300k. A 30 year mortgage with a 6.5% interest rate and 10% down payment would be almost $2100 per month. That’s assuming they’re able to save the 10% in the first place, and get approved for the loan. It also leaves them with only ~$900 for the entire monthly budget. That’s food, utilities, car payment(s), insurance, childcare, etc…
  
  Yeah I mean I guess I'm biased, pgh housing market hasn't really be affected and there aren't massive new housing plans like there are in the west. Here you can buy a house with good bones that needs cosmetic remodeling for 60,000
- Why doesn't he homestead his home. I know Texas you can and it reduces your taxes. Used to be almost 0 but think that part changed.

Counterpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism from the original progressive
Marx was not a fan.

What type of community will his home exist in if everyone stops paying taxes?
Boomers underfunded the schools and shit around here to get out of taxes. Now that they’re ready to move to Florida, they don’t understand why no one wants to buy their house.

America is such a shitshow (at least one person thinks it isn't, which is wild).

Eh, probably paid like 25k for a house that's worth 500k now or something. Really what we need to do is make property taxes scale more aggressively, so it isn't economical to hoard more resources than you can actually use. Maybe something like annual tax owed = (value of all real estate owned by one person)^2/10,000,000. Perhaps with a grace period for new construction/renovations.
As for appraisal, let people declare what their property is worth, and force them to sell if someone offers 20% more than their claimed value.
- As for appraisal, let people declare what their property is worth, and force them to sell if someone offers 20% more than their claimed value.
  Ah yes, force people to move out of their homes. What's lemmy's obsession with uprooting families lately?
  
  Land is a natural resource, and like air or sunlight, nobody deserves to own it more than anybody else.
  "But my family has live here for generations!" sounds awful similar to "I deserve it because my great great grandfather killed the people that used to live here."
  You get to decide how much the land is worth to you. If you value it honestly and somebody else values it higher, a trade benefits both of you.
  
  Has nothing to do with "uprooting families". Average American families are not the ones grossly overestimating the values of their property. It's people like Trump who use overestimated values on their properties in order to hide money and grift people into paying him more than properties are actually worth. And then readjusting to actual values, or lower, in order to dodge taxes.
  Edit: my reply was not an endorsement of OP's property assessment plan. I was only speaking to our frustration with the rich who hoard wealth in the form of land and use overinflated valuations of their property to increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else. And even though OP's idea is flawed there is merit in the idea of altering the way property value is determined.
- Investment company comes in and buys literally everything because they can just offer 20% over value. Now they rent it out for twice as much as your mortgage cost. What are you going to do, not like there are any other houses left.
  
  Think about what the investment company's tax rate would look like. They'd be bankrupt instantly. They'd have to pay 10M/year in taxes to maintain ownership of $10M in property.
- Socialise the housing market and make sure every person has a roof over their head. It’s the only proven solution to homelessness.
- I really like the self appraisal idea

Using retirees as a tool to work against property taxes has historically been an effective strategy, but it's important to remember:
What we're actually trying to accomplish
Will the proposed change be effective in accomplishing the goal
Will the change have other consequences that are negative to the extent where the potential benefits outweigh the consequences in aggregate
Are there any alternative means to accomplish the original goal
One-by-one:
What we're actually trying to accomplish
Seems to me that the root question is one of housing affordability, in particular for retirees, who may have a lot of assets, but limited cash flow
Will the proposed change be effective in accomplishing the goal
Reducing/capping property taxes does indeed make it easier for some retirees to keep affording their homes, but reducing property taxes makes real estate a more lucrative investment, driving up the overall prices of real estate. This applies for both private persons intending to use the property to live in, for private persons looking seek rent, and corporate actors doing the same. Messing with property taxes is a large part of the housing affordability issue present in many places in the U.S and elsewhere (zoning laws being another major contributor, in particular those mandating single family homes, and lack of public housing being the other major contributor). Hence, this change would only benefit those lucky enough to have purchased a home in the past, at the expense of all retirees not already that lucky, which are now less likely to be able to do so.
Will the change have other consequences that are negative to the extent where the potential benefits outweigh the consequences in aggregate
Apart from driving up the prices of real estate for other retirees, everyone else interested in purchasing a home will also feel this broad increase in prices. This has led to large swaths of the population being effectively priced out of home ownership. This has the second order effect of making owning rentals more lucrative, as higher rents can be charged, further exacerbating the larger problem of housing affordability, but now also for even poorer people.
Finally, reductions in real estate taxes limit what public services can be funded through their use. In the U.S, this primarily means schools, infrastructure, firefighting, transit etc, all of which are suffering a lot in quality, much as a consequence of having messed with property taxes in the past.
There's a very, very strong case to be made that the consequences have very much outweighed the benefits in this scenario. I would even say that they have been devastating, being part of the root cause of a large amount of issues seen today.
Are there any alternative means to accomplish the original goal
There clearly are good means to tackle this problem in other ways, the principal of which I believe should be massive public investment in social housing. By building a huge supply of high quality homes affordable to everyone, we make sure no one will have to be forced to go without an acceptable home, regardless of whether they are retired or not.
The second strategy should be to entirely remove the kind of zoning laws that have contributed to the kind of increase in housing prices seen today - mandating that only single family homes should be allowed to be built on massive lots with low utilization is hugely harmful to housing affordability.
These two measures would address housing prices having gone up in the way they have historically, which would also lead to property taxes not rising in such a dramatic fashion.
What should never be done, however, is reducing or capping property taxes.
- You make it sound like it's either or. The resonable thing to do would be to reduce property taxes for the property the owner lives in and tax even more the additional properties. The goal is for people to be able to afford their homes and at the same time making properties not so attractive as an investment.
  
  Please refer to the section about the negative effects of reducing property taxes.

If you pay property taxes then the property isn't yours.
In my town, the land belongs to the local government.
- Certified psycho. If you think owning a plot of land within a country does not have an opportunity cost you are wrong. If you think people imposing costs on others shouldn't pay for it say it out loud.
  Just go and found your own country already, you just need a gun in order to enforce your ownership. In the end a state is just the monopoly of force in a place.
  
  Yeah, this is one of the meanings of "property is theft". To own land is deny all others that piece of land.
  
  I agree with the point that land is owned by the one strong enough to enforce ownership.
  I also think you agree with my point that we don't own our land, or even our houses, the State owns it and we rent it from them.
- As it should. You’re telling me someone can just buy a piece of the earth and everyone born after them is just shit outta luck? Fuck that.
  
  Well isn't that pretty much what my local government did?
  Considering it's history. It was Monarch land, then took by dictator, then took by Republic, then took by dictator, then back to Monarchy for a short period during democratic transitioning. Well technically they didn't even buy it they just took it.
  While the people living here, which with me it's 3 generations of my family but another three before that of another family (the ones who built it), had to paid for it the whole time.
  At least the duchess land was really cheap, like 1 testimonial cent even in recent times.
  If that sounds fair to you, then okay, nothing different from Absolute Monarchies time except the Monarchs.
- This is such an excellent point. Exactly when do we get to stop paying for something that we already own

Nobody tell him that in Communist China you pay a small land tax once every 70 years or so.
Actually someone do tell him. I bet that little factoid will flip his entire worldview on its head.

What we're actually trying to accomplish

Will the proposed change be effective in accomplishing the goal

Will the change have other consequences that are negative to the extent where the potential benefits outweigh the consequences in aggregate

Are there any alternative means to accomplish the original goal