Taxing Tax Reform

A progressive makes the case for property taxes

by Staff, Utne Reader
July-August 2011

taxing-tax-reform-small
Image Gallery
Image by Flickr user: Enter the STory / Creative Commons
Article Tools
Print
Comments
RSS

Restore the property tax! Restore the property tax!

RELATED CONTENT

It’s not a chant you’ll hear anytime soon at a Tea Party rally or even a liberal political potluck, but the progressive social-justice magazine Dollars & Sense(March-April 2011) makes the case that the property tax, “the original wealth tax,” is perhaps the fairest tax—and that, properly levied, it could prevent massive cuts in public services.

“It’s the oldest wealth tax of all, the tax that financed Chinese civilization over 2,000 years ago, the tax that until World War II financed most of the government in the United States,” writes Polly Cleveland, an adjunct professor of economics at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Since then, states have shifted to income and sales taxes, and most property taxes now go toward local government, especially school districts. This creates a stark and often criticized class disparity, Cleveland explains: “Within the same state, rich districts can finance good schools at low property tax rates, while poor districts can only finance lousy schools at high rates. But this is not the fault of the property tax; it would be equally true of any local tax.”

Cleveland suggests shifting school financing in part to the state and federal level and reclaiming the property tax as a progressive tax tool, arguing that, because property ownership is concentrated among the wealthy, property taxes are actually even more progressive than income taxes.

Of course, Cleveland knows that she has some lobbying work to do, given that most people have come “to perceive [property taxes] as obsolete, unfair, and a burden on the poor and middle class.” This, she claims, constitutes a PR victory for the rich people and corporations who reap most of the benefits of our anti–property tax fervor.

cover-166-thumbnailHave something to say? Send a letter to editor@utne.com. This article first appeared in the July-August 2011 issue of Utne Reader. 

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print


Archived Comments

  • steve eatenson 7/28/2011 10:17:06 AM

    I think this is an interesting idea if by property you include all tangible assets including bank accounts, stocks, bonds, savings accounts, money markets, etc. It should include all tangible assets as property. Would there be a graduated tax percent based on an individuals total asset worth? How would you monitor this for cheaters? If I owned a rare diamond worth 10-million dollars, how would you know? If I owned controlling shares of a corporation, would that be taxed as an asset? If I owned an individual propriator business or partnership worth millions, would that be taxed as a personal asset? It should be. It would be very complicated to fairly implement this system, wouldn't it?

  • JWT Meakin 7/27/2011 2:32:13 PM

    I agree with Lisa. Shifting a tax burden from income and purchases to property is fine so long as one has income. However, if a person has, like me, paid income taxes at a high rate for many years; has purchased property out of the remainder; is now expecting a significant drop in income and is organizing his life to minimize expenses; then switching the tax code so as to add a large fixed tax burden on taxed savings represents double taxation.

  • Ephy 7/27/2011 12:08:08 PM

    Lisa...this 'most meager piece of property' you describe still leaves the owner with more benefits than liabilities at the end of the day (and if not, then sell it). Annual property taxes will be lower than an annual rent amount for similar property, plus the taxes can be deducted from your taxable income while rent cannot. All people, all the time, are 'compelled to bring in...monetary income' and owning land can help in that equation. I can't help but shake my head when asked to feel sorry for those poor, poor landowners.

  • Lisa 7/27/2011 10:38:52 AM

    It is hard for me to imagine disagreeing more with this. Property taxes as they currently exist ensure that, even after you have paid off the most meager piece of property - which, properly managed, gives you a place to grow food and stay out of trouble - you will be compelled to bring in an additional monetary income sufficient to make annual payments on your property so that the government doesn't take it away. Ms. Cleveland apparently advocates that people should be burdened with an even larger annual and recurring debt, incurred simply because a person wants to have control over where they lay their head. I could see, perhaps, taxing some real estate on a luxury tax basis, but when you are talking about placing a recurring debt on a person's home and basic livelihood, there is nothing "progressive" about it.

2147490617
MY COMMUNITY
MOST POPULAR


Pay Now & Save $6!
First Name: *
 Last Name: *
Address: *
 City: *
State/Province: *
 Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
 Email:*


(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Want to gain a fresh perspective? Read stories that matter? Feel optimistic about the future? It's all here! Utne Reader offers provocative writing from diverse perspectives, insightful analysis of art and media, down-to-earth news and in-depth coverage of eye-opening issues that affect your life.

Save Even More Money By Paying NOW!

Pay now with a credit card and take advantage of our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. You save an additional $6 and get 6 issues of Utne Reader for only $29.95 (USA only).

Or Bill Me Later and pay just $36 for 6 issues of Utne Reader!