A compromise for property tax?

A big discussion that comes up often in the USA is around property taxes. After you take 30 years to pay off your mortgage, you are still paying property taxes for the rest of your life.

While I like the idea of simply not having property taxes at all... I was trying to think of a compromise.

What if you did not have any more taxes after you had lived on a property for say 15 years? This would encourage people to stay in a community for longer periods of time, so they could get this benefit. It would also encourage people to live on the property they own. I think both of those things would be beneficial to communities.

Or maybe, you get to stop paying property tax once your mortgage is paid off? This would encourage people to pay off their mortgage as soon as possible to get the benefit. I think this option would also be good for communities as debt causes many hardships.

What do you think? Where would your compromise land between taxes for life and no taxes?

Having just paid off my mortgage and paying my first tax bill mortgage free. I have been pondering this. To pay the property tax and insurance I will still have to squirrel away money every month to make the yearly tax payment. I understand that I have or should pay my fair share for services.
In Oregon there is no sales tax I wonder if one were imposed would that be a fair way for non-property owners to pay their fair share? Does their paying rent address their fair share? Dipping into non-residents visitors' pockets to help?
The largest part of my taxes goes to schools; my kids are no longer in home. Should that be a factor in one's tax burden? higher taxes for residents that have children in schools, when those parents starting out are probably the ones that would struggle with an increased payment?
One of the next highest portions is the Fire District, I want ambulance and fire services. As I get older, I might need an ambulance.
Library tax, I have embraced the availability of books on e-readers. I like the smell and feel of paper but being able to carry a library in my sling bag has its advantages. A huge new library the majority of it not warehousing books but computer labs, meeting rooms, etc.
Then I look at what is taken from taxes on city established Urban Renewal Districts that no resident has the ability to question or oppose. Portions of taxes that should be going to the schools are snatched before it gets to them.
So many things to ponder.

Here, there is what is called Homestead Tax Credit and now covers up to $500 of property and land taxes as long as you own the home and live on the property .  It is not income based, everyone who owns their place of residence qualifies.

Taxes are still relatively low here so it has always more than covered our home and land, even when we owned 40 acres...our homes have never been valued at much though.

If you can convince some government to do this, I would be pleased. I see the argument for property taxes but in some areas tends  to affect poor, multigenerational farm families most, who already are struggling.  It could set a good example for other communities where this is the issue.

Personally, I think public libraries are very important for more than books (but the books are worth it in themselves for people like me who don’t buy much). They have in part merged with the older lyceum movement and function as centers of community and all sorts of good things.

Matt McSpadden wrote:Where would your compromise land between taxes for life and no taxes?

I don't think any of the suggestions for not paying taxes after a while really work as things stand. But I suppose they could be made to work if the locale drastically increased the tax rate  and socked half the payment away into a trust or similar fund that would then go to fund the public services taxes pay for once individuals stop paying. But like, that's increasing the socialism quotient of the world when you could just individually sock money away into an index fund and then pay your property tax obligation out of it when you're older.

I have to preface this by admitting that I'm not really interested in such a compromise. I am proud to pay my property taxes and enjoy gaining the benefits they pay for. I almost always vote to raise property taxes when I'm given the chance. (I did not vote to build a new high school stadium with property taxes a few years go, but I always vote to fund investments I value or that will draw other revenue to the county.)

So that I'm not just poo-pooing Matt's idea, I'd like to propose a structural change where the tax payer gets to allocate half of the money they pay into the buckets they value. If I want a library expansion and Matt wants to improve the airport, we each get to help fund those efforts, while still seeing to baseline maintenance of everything.

I will say that this is coming from some who has lived in Maine most of their lives. Maine is mostly a rural state and as a percentage of personal income... Maine has the highest property tax burden in the USA. If other states can offer more services for less taxes... then I think it would behoove Maine to evaluate how they are spending money (actually we are being investigated... but I digress).

Christopher Weeks wrote:I don't think any of the suggestions for not paying taxes after a while really work as things stand...  I have to preface this by admitting that I'm not really interested in such a compromise. I am proud to pay my property taxes and enjoy gaining the benefits they pay for...

I think anyone who posts in the politics forum will probably find people who have other ideas... it does not bother me at all :) And I actually do agree that we could not simply make a drastic change and make it work. I've always been more of a fan of taxing purchases, rather than assets. The more I spend, the more taxes I pay. The more I drive, the more I pay for roads... that sort of thing.

Christopher Weeks wrote:So that I'm not just poo-pooing Matt's idea, I'd like to propose a structural change where the tax payer gets to allocate half of the money they pay into the buckets they value. If I want a library expansion and Matt wants to improve the airport, we each get to help fund those efforts, while still seeing to baseline maintenance of everything.

Actually this is kind of a cool idea. It is an expansion on the idea I have heard in the past where you would choose which school your tax money goes to support. That way if you children have options, you can support the school they go to, rather than the school your town says you are going to support. I like the idea of having more direct say in what types of services your taxes support. It might spark some striving for excellence in some areas where people have a tendency to skate by.

Matt McSpadden wrote: Maine is mostly a rural state and as a percentage of personal income... Maine has the highest property tax burden in the USA. If other states can offer more services for less taxes... then I think it would behoove Maine to evaluate how they are spending money (actually we are being investigated... but I  

Property taxes, income  taxes, sales taxes, business taxes... somehow things need to be paid for. Unless we go back to ( for example) paying the fire department directly, and if you dont pay you dont get service. It is almost always better to collectivly pay for common things, purchasing power and all that.

I wonder if other states do offer more services for less money? or they just pay for the services with a different funding source?

Sandy