while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue the primary source of income should come from property tax in excess of one's own personal property. and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land, but for excessively large properties, it should only be a reduction. if you can't afford to own an excessively large property, tough luck. and of course again propety outside one's own, should be taxed largely. this all creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible. a person shouldn't be required to have a roomate, but when it starts to get excessive, you need to start figuring somehting else out if you can't afford it. bottom line though is we should not get rid of the property tax, it should be our main focus, aside from possible homestead exemptions. (next in line is income tax. this way we can get a firm revenue,,,, if people want to make money, they are going to have to pay income tax. last in line, so as to encourage commercial activity, sales tax. which would have to focus on those with more income, perhaps. see pros and cons of 'fair tax', but also note the disadvantags that would entail needing to keep poor people from having to pay, and ensuring enough revenue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- notable economists have agreed that high property taxes are optimal, of all stipes of economists. milton friedman, and paul krugman and stiglitz and adam smith for instance. when these guys agree on something, we should listen. Milton Friedman stated: "There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise " and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land "Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, agree that land value taxation is the best means of raising public revenue" The Nobelist Joseph Stiglitz writes "Not only was Henry George correct that a tax on land is non-distortionary, but in an equilibrium society ... tax on land raises just enough revenue to finance the (optimally chosen) level of government expenditure." here is smith talking about it. here he's also talking about the only argument i can think of that con might try to plausibly make ground on, is that higher property values would cause rent to rise for tenants. i know con didn't raise this argument, ut i think con does need some better arguments for his position, so i will take that too. we see both his supoort for propety tax, but also the fact that it doesn't cause rent to raise. as far basck as free market began to get really philosophically expanded upon, it was accepted higher property taxes doing a good thing. It was Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations, who first rigorously analyzed the effects of a land value tax, pointing out how it would not hurt economic activity, and how it would not raise land rents. "Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. " Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses