In a nearby community, the county increased property value assessments on a number of houses. As expected during these times, this caused an outrage with some of the owners. "It just doesn't make any sense. The housing market is bottomed out, and "they" increased my taxes."
My libertarian side says this situation is purely government failure. There shouldn't be property taxes and government. This is just another example of government coercing people.
My realistic side says we have to pay for some local quasi-public goods and services. Property taxes meet the wherewithal principle. There could be a worse way, and nothing is changing soon.
My economist side says the problem is valuation. These assessments are just made-up. I have seen a lot of economic valuation models, and they all have flaws. (They are all bullshit.) So here is what I think, if the county assesses a house at $X, they should have to be willing and able to buy the house at $X. If the owner thinks his house is assessed at too high of a value, he can sell it to the taxing authority. And the taxing authority would have to buy it or reassess. People could truly "vote with their feet" by moving in and out of communities.
This idea is certainly not new. But I was reminded of it when I reading this about changing the rules in baseball and football. The problem with changing rules is not rational benefits and costs, but something more visceral. Changing rules causes emotional responses, causes a fundamentally different way of viewing things. My first reaction to Posnanski's post was "sometimes you just have to win." Kneeling and intentional walks are about winning. But this isn't a rational response. It is just how I view the world. No rationale is going change my mind.
It is hard to change rules. And maybe that is a good thing. And maybe it isn't. But I certainly don't want to eliminate the intentional walk or the ability to kneel down to end football games.
But I do want to change the way counties assess property values.
(Yeah, Posnanski says the same thing except better, but I had to try.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you have just highlighted the problem of trying to value a relatively illiquid asset. It is an interesting idea, though I doubt any county could afford it. Also, it would likely create a speculative bubble because the government has suddenly created a floor on housing prices within a year. Sort of like the Greenspan put. It is a Heisenberg problem of sorts, in measuring values in this way you change the value of what you are measuring.
Post a Comment