litchralee@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
In California, property tax is adjusted annually regardless of which way it goes. But if it goes up, it is capped at 2% per year, due to Prop 13. If the assessed value drops, then the reduction in property tax is not limited.
As public policy, this has been devastating for local funding, being the primary means for funding local school districts in this state. When the education prospects of children are subjected to the whims of the wider economy and/or how hot (or not) the local property market is, this is a recipe for inequity: well-off areas are willing to tax themselves extra (beyond the Prop 13 2% cap) and get good schools for it. But poor areas cannot afford even the existing tax, because property tax is regressive and consumes a larger proportion of poorer household budgets. Meanwhile, the state abdicates its role in funding education, because they believe the locals would vote for more taxes for education, even though it’s plainly obviously a Zip code lottery.
But I digress.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Sounds like a wealth tax would be better
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Wealth taxes are good for once things are already out of control, I think generally higher income taxes/capital gains taxes (which should be higher than general income taxes) are the most progressive way to tax.
litchralee@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Let’s also not forget inheritance tax, which directly addresses the problem of hoarding wealth and perpetuating inequities across generations. If supposedly “self-made” people “earned” their billions, then their heirs should have no problems earning their own as well.
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I support high inheritance taxes, but practically speaking they hit the middle class the hardest because they are the easiest to avoid once you are rich enough.