Home sales (or the lack thereof) continue to dominate the media these days. And despite realtors touting it as a buyers’ market, it seems that largely, buyers are staying away.
It’s not just the sub-prime fiasco that has some buyers running scared. In some places, like Philadelphia, many taxpayers are concerned about what’s going to happen to property taxes. As the values of homes have increased (and in some places, such as parts of California, they’ve actually skyrocketed), property taxes have also risen. This makes sense because in most areas, property taxes are keyed directly off of the value of real estate.
But the more that I think about this, the more that I wonder if that’s a fair method of assessing tax. In most cases (though not all), those who have more expensive homes can afford more expensive taxes. But it’s also clear that the more expensive taxes do not correlate to more services. Let me explain what I mean…
I live in the Wissahickon section of Philadelphia, near the park. It is one of the prettiest areas of the City. It is also, statistically, the safest area of the City. And, because it is solidly middle class, it is also stable in terms of home values. My home is assessed at several times more than a similar sized home in, let’s say, Kensington, an area of the City that has clearly seen better times – and with the City’s crime issues these days requires enormous numbers of police (not to mention other services).
However, in terms of services, I would venture to say that my area of the City also costs taxpayers much less than Kensington costs taxpayers. Policing is less necessary – and thus, less expensive. And when the City needs help – whether it’s cleaning the street, or buying extra bikes for the police, our business owners pitch in with a contribution through our Neighborhood Improvement District. Our residents regularly clean the parks (the 100 Steps, LaNoce and Gorgas all have regular, organized efforts) which means less work for the overwhelmed, underfunded parks workers. And… well, you get the picture.
So, we pay more for less. It is a problem that has caused many homeowners to flee the City. But we’re not alone in that regard. Many taxpayers all over the country pay proportionately more for property taxes for arguably fewer services (I note this isn’t always the case because some high dollar districts also get extraordinary amounts of services, like Manhattan). Is this fair?
That brings me to today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question:
Should property taxes be based on an inherently flawed formula that assesses taxes on fair market value? Is it just a reality that those with more can afford to pay more? Or is there a better alternative?
On Sunday, I found myself in a minivan (don’t ask) with the rest of my family driving down to coastal North Carolina for a mini-break (yes, the minis are taking over my life… now for that darn Mini Cooper and I’m set!).
I was mulling what I might post about during my vacation because I didn’t want to leaving you hanging (how would you survive without your tax posts?) and because I didn’t want to do something cheesy in the interim. I thought about tax trivia, tax history (since I’m working on a book), tax profiles… Nothing seemed to work. And then, as I sped down Highway 17, I saw a number of signs that formed the basis for my series this week. They said, simply, “Say No to Incorporation.”
I grew up in a little town in southeastern North Carolina called Hampstead, NC. We were, proudly, the Seafood Capital of the Carolinas. There was, however, little else that passed through our town. We were a spot on the map. We did not even have a stoplight – we got one when I was in high school, the photo appears in our high school yearbook.
Even then, in the early 1980s, there were debates about the merits of incorporation. The locals feared what it meant but as more and more growth happened in our town, the argument picked up speed. Ogden, just down the road, had already been swallowed by Wilmington – were we next?
For years, the argument came and went. Nothing ever happened.
But now, the argument has once again gathered momentum. Hampstead is no longer the sleepy little town that it used to be. Some might argue that’s for the good. Some might argue… well, you get the idea.
Whereas once the argument was relegated to grocery store parking lots and the Chamber of Commerce, it is now out in the open. Signs proliferate not only along the highway, but spotted through neighborhoods. It is on the hearts and minds of many in the town.
I asked my mom what had changed, what was compelling folks to take up this argument now. She gave me some of the older arguments (fear of being eaten to the south by Wilmington, to the north by Surf City) but then she mentioned something that gave me my *aha* moment: double taxation. You see, folks in Hampstead don’t actually pay local taxes, just county taxes. But our county, Pender, is quite large. Most of the wealth in Pender is concentrated on the eastern part of the county, near the coast, near, you guessed it, Hampstead. And back in the day, Hampstead had to rely solely on Burgaw (our county seat in Pender County) for all of our services – from police to EMT to sanitation (such as it was). As the town grows, many residents aren’t thrilled with the level of services provided – they think they could do better on their own. Burgaw, as you can imagine, isn’t excited thrilled at the notion of losing out on tax dollars. Even though they don’t necessarily provide the equivalent amount of services to the eastern part of the county, taxes collected in this part of the county are divvied up and used throughout the county. Some would argue that this is to Hampstead’s detriment – they pay dollars that Burgaw spends for services in other places. What’s a town to do? Could they perhaps incorporate and be responsible for their own tax collection and their own services? Maybe.
[click to continue…]
