“If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . “
Maybe they’ll try again.
That’s my reaction to the news 
that North Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment yesterday that would have eliminated that state’s property tax.
To be fair, energy-rich (and financially flush) North Dakota is in a better position than most states to even consider such a move.
But, the philosophical argument for eliminating property taxes — or at least restraining them, unlike a certain very large Minnesota city I can think of — is fundamentally sound.
In a nutshell, it’s that taxes should be levied first on income, then on consumption, and finally — and only to the extent necessary — assets.
Taxes & Public Policy
Personally, I have no qualms whatsoever imposing — effective yesterday — a special surtax on people making more than $1 million annually.
If you’re in that lucky financial sliver, you can shoulder a greater financial burden when the country you live in is effectively broke.
By contrast, taxing assets does a poor job of matching government’s legitimate need to raise funds with citizens’ wherewithal to pay.
Unless of course you’re talking about excise taxes on estates bigger than, say, $50 million, which I’d also endorse.
But assets — and specifically, homes — are in a special category.
Plus, on a purely practical level, taxing (and overtaxing) homes is a terrific way to drive people out of urban areas with aging housing stock that desperately need all the young families and school age children they can attract.
Oh . . . and retirees aren’t too keen on seeing their assets taxed, either.
P.S.: For examples of how ridiculous Minneapolis property taxes have become, see “Minneapolis Upper Bracket Homes? “What a piTi”; “Never Mind the Mortgage — Can the Buyer Afford the Property Taxes?”; “Minneapolis Property Tax Sticker Shock.”
