I agree with you abstractly on the subject of the sales tax, and we agree more than we disagree, but I don't entirely agree with your rationale. My opposition to the property tax is because it ultimately means that a man's property ultimately and always belongs to the state (you're paying rent on your own property!). (http://raw360.com/item/2551)

Many of your other criticisms increasingly apply to the income tax, too: fewer and fewer people actually pay it and the rest can levy whatever kinds of taxes they want. The only way this can be avoided, really, is either a flat tax or a national sales tax, both of which I find too regressive.

Also universal is the fact that as long as there is a public school system, the childless will be paying for the education of children. I don't see that as a huge problem. You may disagree, but I think that's something of a different issue. Get rid of the property tax entirely and the "problem" will remain.

But indeed the property tax is worse than others in this regard in three ways:

1) as you point out, in some locales a lot of the property taxes are sometimes paid by relatively few landholders. San Marcos has this problem as the biggest institution in the state is Texas State U, which doesn't help the coffers. The only thing that saves it is the mall. I'm not sure how often this is the case.

2) Property taxes are completely unpredictable. This is huge. Income and sales tax rates are known. You can pay less either by making less or by buying less. At the very least you can account for approximately how much you're going to spend. Property taxes, on the other hand, rise and fall from year to year due to things completely beyond your control.

3) I can't recall where I saw the statistic, but I remember reading somewhere that the average home sells for 10% less than it is appraised for for taxes. Not sure of the exact figure, but there needs to be a control for this. Counties get to write their own bill, in one respect.

Alex,

I completely disagree with your statement that, "My opposition to the property tax is because it ultimately means that a man's property ultimately and always belongs to the state." The problem with this statement is that the essence of private property is governmental support. A professor once defined property as follows:

"That is property to which the following label can be attached: To the world: Keep off, unless you have my permission, which I may grant or withhold.
Signed: Private Citizen
Endorsed: The State"

The point being that you can say something is your private property, but if the state doesn't endorse that view, you're out of luck. For example, I own a home. I put up a no trespassing sign. The sign is only worth what the government will do to enforce it. If someone comes on my property, I can of course evict them by force, but I run the risk of civil or criminal liability unless the state agrees with me that the home belongs to me. Or, I can call the state to come and evict the trespasser for me. Without state backing, we're in a Hobbesian state where I "own" nothing more than what I can take and keep by myself.

Once you accept the premise that ownership requires state action (or, more accurately, the threat of state action), then the question becomes whether the state is entitled to tax that which it protects. To me, the answer is of course. State action costs money. Why should I subsidize the state's protection of someone else's property?

This is not to say that our property tax system is not in need of reform. I think it is. But the notion that a property tax is wrong fails when one considers that, without the state, there are no property rights.

RAW, a couple of points:

#1 - "Get rid of the property tax entirely and the "problem" [childless paying for the public school system] will remain."

This may be true, but it would lessen the burden significantly if the public school system were tied to a more universal tax that 'everyone', not just those who own their own homes, paid. ('Everyone' in quotes because that still excludes those of such low income that they pay no taxes).

#2 - as regards the tax assessments, Texas has a particularly bad habit of inflating assessments without regard to reality at every opportunity. There's information at the CLOUT website (http://www.clouttexas.com/) regarding this. They're even filing lawsuits on behalf of the taxpaying public, because of the situation that's been developing.

#3 - as Kevin pointed out, the government is necessary to protect property rights. Thus, they are entitled to a certain amount of taxation.

However, the situation as it is now is that the list of taxpayers (as far as property taxes, the main way most Texas counties/cities get their money) is well below 50% of the voting public, and that's an issue because one portion of the public are simply being abused by people who vote for a tax that they don't have to pay.

Kevin,

The services provided to property-owners are provided to those that don't own property as well. I rent, but the police protect me, too, whether I am in my house or not. Even if I am homeless. I'm not sure why such things should be so heavily funded on the basis of the ownership of property. The courts defend the rights to all of my property, even if I am homeless in a car.

That being said, I'm not 100% against the imposition of a property tax ever. A tax system completely up to me would actually include a property tax for a couple of reasons. First, it would help delineate the tax structure. I'd prefer that the federal government get its money only through income taxes, the state only through sales taxes, and local governments only through property taxes (express user fees would occur on every level, though). The main reason for that last bit is actually something that Sammler pointed out last time I brought the subject up: for residential communities, property taxes are the only income they can realistically accrue.

Unfortunately, property taxes go to the state of Texas, too, which is the real chip I have on my shoulder. Cities and counties have sales taxes, also, which doesn't mesh with my perfect form of taxation, but I have less of a problem with it since I have less of a problem with the sales tax in general.

Mike,

Even renters pay property taxes indirectly. Owners of rental properties certainly aren't eating the cost. Maybe the problem is that we need to make that more transparent by delineating the taxes that are being passed on from owner to tenant, like the stickers they used to have on gas pumps (or maybe still do) with how much per gallon goes towards the gov't. Another option would be a proprietor's tax instead of a property tax, wherein the proprietor cuts a check to the county in addition to a check to the power company, water company, and so on. Haven't really thought these ideas through, though.

RAW,

renters "pay" property taxes indirectly, but they never SEE the taxes. They never see a portion of their rental bill labeled "$X: taxes on property." They never see the increase directly, either, since even if the property taxes go up their contracted rent doesn't go up until it's time for renewal/renegotiation.

Plus, there are a sizable number of people in "Section 8" and similar programs whose rent is artificially deflated, and that further changes the dynamic, since these people are REALLY not paying property taxes even indirectly.

That was sorta my point: maybe the problem is transparency.

I heard a comment once - don't remember where - that the sneakiest thing the government ever did to us was the creation of tax withholdings from the weekly/monthly paycheck.

Most people look at their bank account and see what went into it; if they actually had to write out the check to the government every few months, likely they'd all be a LOT more conservative about allowing politicians to hike taxes.

Alex,

I disagree with your statement that the services are provided to non-property owners. If you rent an apartment, you are entitled to the right of posssession. You "own" the right to occupy that premises (subject to paying your rent), so the right that the police are protecting is the same for you as it is for a home owner. The government does not generally impose property taxes on renters because it is administratively difficult and would be politically unpopular, but they could do so. And as pointed out above, renters do pay them indirectly.