• BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    There are some pros and obvious cons here. Property taxes are usually regressive (unless they had property tax brackets, which I’ve never heard of) so this could benefit lower incomes. They can also replace the property tax with something worse, like fixed fees, or not replace it at all. Property tax reform, rather than elimination, might’ve been better.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s not inherently true in rural states where the property value math is a lot different. In remote areas, land can only be a few thousand dollars of purchase value, or be passed by family, thus still frequently be inhabited by the dirt poor who have few employment opportunities in said rural areas. I should know, I’m smack dab in the middle of one of said areas.

        • drone509@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Property taxes, like basically every other cost to a rental property, just gets passed down to renters as well. It’s not like landlords let taxes affect their profit margins.

          • greyfox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            North Dakota like many states has a renters refund for those with lower incomes which is designed to at least partially offset that. Limits look to be a bit low but every little bit helps.