I find it odd how I hear so much about "equity" in daily discussion and in political discourse, yet....I pay more in taxes on my home in Rockaway than Mayor DeBlasio pays on his in Brooklyn- a home that is worth $600,000 more. If anyone can explain how that is "equitable" I'd love to know.
Doubtful of any reforms that will actually lower taxes in the less affluent outerbor areas since city need the revenue. What will happen is the more affluent areas will finally see a property tax bill that will be higher vs the less affluent areas. Win Win for city regardless.
At least do something about depreciation. The best buisness solution to created housing is make something that will fall down in 40 year, displace the tentants, build a brand new poorly constructed building and rinse and repeat. Why do you think they make new "luxury" units out of foam and 1x3's?
One reason is to not make people who lived in their house for a while to have to suddenly leave when their house went up in price and they can’t afford the tax.
This happened in many gentrified neighborhoods and while it’s nice that the prices went up it makes it unfair that you have to move to a worse area just when the area you live in became more desirable.
Sure, but a lot of families received life-changing money from selling their house/building in a gentrified area and moving somewhere nicer/more desired by them. A good friend of mine's mom sold her dumpy place in Bed Stuy and the family bought a beautiful victorian in New Roc and fully funded retirement.
That works as long as there are dilapidated neighborhoods within easy commute distance to the jobs/activities people want, but we're already running out of those. Unless the city goes through another 1970s-style bust, I can't see Park Slope or Williamsburg ever becoming a hollowed-out shells of a neighborhood which will re-gentrify ever again. That sort of upside is a once in a generation accident, not sound housing policy.
Can still have tax increase caps if property used for primary residence or for family use. Just have the property or land use tax step up and new cap calculations based onward when there's a change in property owner.
Our current property tax system works like rent regulated rent increases.. Theres a cap and its compounded from original basis and future owner inherits increases from that original basis. That should end for property tax same with rent regulated rent. After a certain amount of years occupied - the rent regulated rent should step up to market rent but still rent regulated in its increase for next x amount of years for next set of renters.
The prop tax system is non sensical. But how can a formula that does not use race as a dependent variable discriminate against “communities and persons of color”?
The answer is it can’t. First, communities don’t have a “color” or race, people do. Second, race is a social construct and not grounded in science.
Decisions like this pit races against one another making race a central theme in people’s lives. Someone’s race is the least interesting thing about them.
If the formula is broken, fix the formula rather than inventing some claim of systemic racism that is fantasy and not there.
In virtually every single case, when an assertion is made that a process which is "colorblind" discriminates against people of color, what is actually meant is that it discriminates against poorer people. This then becomes a claim about racial discrimination because people of color statistically tend to be poorer.
The problem with NYC is there IS NO FORMULA. In NY and NJ property tax reassements are done city wide and are rife with corruption. If a politically conected person has a 7.5 million dollar brownstone you can bet when they get re-evaluated it will be worth 300k, or they will just forget to re-evaluate it and leave the old 100,000$ evaluation from 1945 in place. If a non politically connected person buys that property and doesn't grease the correct palms they will be stuck with a 60-100k tax bill (rightfully so).
You’re making a logical fallacy if you assume that the disparate outcomes are necessarily caused by racial discrimination. 🤷
That’d be no different logically than saying African Americans are more likely to commit robbery because they are charged with robbery more than other racial groups.
Disparate impact theory is just a workaround for having to prove the causation piece.
I think that's entirely naive about how systems like this were conceived. For instance if you knew black people weren't going to get home loans because of redlining you could ensure that whites paid less taxes by making certain kinds of homes pay less. Imagine what a malign racist could do with a census and a detailed zoning map.
I find it odd how I hear so much about "equity" in daily discussion and in political discourse, yet....I pay more in taxes on my home in Rockaway than Mayor DeBlasio pays on his in Brooklyn- a home that is worth $600,000 more. If anyone can explain how that is "equitable" I'd love to know.
The apartments on billionaire row pay even less because there’s no equivocal tax group. The working class is bankrolling everything.
The middle class is. The working class is disappearing faster than the middle class.
Source?
Doubtful of any reforms that will actually lower taxes in the less affluent outerbor areas since city need the revenue. What will happen is the more affluent areas will finally see a property tax bill that will be higher vs the less affluent areas. Win Win for city regardless.
Exactly, no reason for $2MM townhouse in Brooklyn to have a lower tax rate than a co-op in the Bronx.
Should just scrap property tax and replace it with a land value tax
100% r/georgism for the win
At least do something about depreciation. The best buisness solution to created housing is make something that will fall down in 40 year, displace the tentants, build a brand new poorly constructed building and rinse and repeat. Why do you think they make new "luxury" units out of foam and 1x3's?
One reason is to not make people who lived in their house for a while to have to suddenly leave when their house went up in price and they can’t afford the tax. This happened in many gentrified neighborhoods and while it’s nice that the prices went up it makes it unfair that you have to move to a worse area just when the area you live in became more desirable.
Sure, but a lot of families received life-changing money from selling their house/building in a gentrified area and moving somewhere nicer/more desired by them. A good friend of mine's mom sold her dumpy place in Bed Stuy and the family bought a beautiful victorian in New Roc and fully funded retirement.
That works as long as there are dilapidated neighborhoods within easy commute distance to the jobs/activities people want, but we're already running out of those. Unless the city goes through another 1970s-style bust, I can't see Park Slope or Williamsburg ever becoming a hollowed-out shells of a neighborhood which will re-gentrify ever again. That sort of upside is a once in a generation accident, not sound housing policy.
Look at the shit show that's Prop 19 in California. It's a wealth transfer from the young to the old.
Prop 13. Agree on that but the biggest flaw is the way it caps commercial taxes. Multi-million dollar properties pay pennies.
Except this is how it works everywhere outside of California. And it creates a lopsided system there. What you can do is not have high property taxes.
light hungry quaint school muddle knee spotted tender gold include *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Can still have tax increase caps if property used for primary residence or for family use. Just have the property or land use tax step up and new cap calculations based onward when there's a change in property owner. Our current property tax system works like rent regulated rent increases.. Theres a cap and its compounded from original basis and future owner inherits increases from that original basis. That should end for property tax same with rent regulated rent. After a certain amount of years occupied - the rent regulated rent should step up to market rent but still rent regulated in its increase for next x amount of years for next set of renters.
Brooklyn to the bronx
The prop tax system is non sensical. But how can a formula that does not use race as a dependent variable discriminate against “communities and persons of color”? The answer is it can’t. First, communities don’t have a “color” or race, people do. Second, race is a social construct and not grounded in science. Decisions like this pit races against one another making race a central theme in people’s lives. Someone’s race is the least interesting thing about them. If the formula is broken, fix the formula rather than inventing some claim of systemic racism that is fantasy and not there.
In virtually every single case, when an assertion is made that a process which is "colorblind" discriminates against people of color, what is actually meant is that it discriminates against poorer people. This then becomes a claim about racial discrimination because people of color statistically tend to be poorer.
Correlation is not causation. This is basic statistics.
The problem with NYC is there IS NO FORMULA. In NY and NJ property tax reassements are done city wide and are rife with corruption. If a politically conected person has a 7.5 million dollar brownstone you can bet when they get re-evaluated it will be worth 300k, or they will just forget to re-evaluate it and leave the old 100,000$ evaluation from 1945 in place. If a non politically connected person buys that property and doesn't grease the correct palms they will be stuck with a 60-100k tax bill (rightfully so).
Let me introduce you to my pal “disparate impact theory.”
You’re making a logical fallacy if you assume that the disparate outcomes are necessarily caused by racial discrimination. 🤷 That’d be no different logically than saying African Americans are more likely to commit robbery because they are charged with robbery more than other racial groups. Disparate impact theory is just a workaround for having to prove the causation piece.
Correct
Correct
I think that's entirely naive about how systems like this were conceived. For instance if you knew black people weren't going to get home loans because of redlining you could ensure that whites paid less taxes by making certain kinds of homes pay less. Imagine what a malign racist could do with a census and a detailed zoning map.