Slashdot Mirror
California Property Tax Exemptions For Solar Energy Systems Extended To 2025
New submitter DaveSmith1982 writes with word from PV Tech that A property tax exemption for solar power systems in California has been extended to 2025, following the passing of a bill as part of the annual state budget. Senate Bill 871 (SB871) was approved during the signing of the budget by governor Jerry Brown, which took place last week. The wording of SB871 extends the period during which property taxes will not be applied to "active solar energy systems," which includes PV and solar water heaters.
Yes, but you only get reassessed when you buy/sell or add livable square footage. I don't pay property tax on my tank-less water heater.
For example: They didn't reassess me when I added a garage/workshop with more square footage then my shack.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If they think it adds to the value of the house in some way, yes. They'll grasp at every last penny they can in an effort for tax money.
As they should, because those with the most property benefit the most from city infrastructure, police and fire services, and national defense. Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
There's no way to determine who benefits the most. Our tax structure (not our society) is built on pretending to tax those who can pay more at a higher rate, but nobody believes it actually does that.
In a system with no property tax, there would be no disincentive to hoard property. This could have serious consequences for the economy. Imagine section after section of productive timber land being held simply on spec, while lumber prices soar..
If you're going to own real property, there's a general consensus that you should put it to productive use, or forfeit. Thus, that vacant lot in the city starts costing you... so you sell it off instead of holding it forever, and then somebody accumulates the lots, options an adjacent lot, gets plans approved for an apartment and... productive use.
Also, property tax is "progressive" in the sense that it's paid by people that have more wealth. Compare and contrast with sales tax which is "regressive"--taking a heavy toll on the poor.
Now of course all the "shrink government to the size of a thimble" people are going to come out of the woodwork. Sorry. It just isn't practical in the 21st century. We are not living in the days when bands of "Indians" with bow and arrow or colonists with muskets gave the British a run for their money. .
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In a system with a property tax their is disincentive to improve you property.
Raw land value should be taxed (obviously at a higher rate).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe the poor could afford to cover their benefits if we didn't force them to live a middle-class lifestyle.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage, and it requires police and fire response to travel a longer distance.
And that's how it should be, because the usual alternative is for urban areas to heavily subsidize the less urbanized areas.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Who told you that? Our society was built on the idea people should be free, meaning free from government, meaning free from politicians and muscular interests that could twist their arm to twist everyone's arm.
Correct. It was built on exactly those things.
It will be destroyed on the idea that rights are given, not recognized. That responsibility is only for the rich. That freedom is only important till someone is offended. That making everyone have an equal amount of stuff trumps recognizing that everyone is equal. That government knows best and every person and every government is equally exceptional.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Very well, In a system with no property tax, there would be no disincentive to [ synonyms: stockpile, store, store up, stock up on, put aside, put by, lay by, lay up, set aside, stow away, buy up; cache, amass, collect, save, gather, garner, accumulate, squirrel away, put aside for a rainy day; informalstash away, salt away "they hoarded rations" ] please choose the preferred term which you regard as "unloaded". (synonyms courtesy of Google's dictionary).
If you get off on seeing people's wealth seized by force and redistributed,
That's all in your head of course.
Now, if you want to get to basics and discuss the pros and cons of allowing private ownership of what is called "real property" (basically land) in the first place, that is fair game.
OK, at the risk of this whole thing spiraling badly down the drain like my last back-n-forth with a libertarian, I'll bite.
Pro: Once you have the land, you don't have to worry about the government taking it away.
Con: Since you aren't paying property taxes, I see two possibilities: 1. The government gets the money some other way. 1a. Good for you, if you don't get caught up in the "some other way". 1b. Bad or neutral, depending on how expensive and/or inconvenient the "some other way" tax is. 2. The government doesn't provide the services customarily supported by property tax (e.g, schools, police).
Situation 2 is regarded as ideal by some people, and that's where I have a bone to pick. Why? Because if you don't pay the government tax, you pay what might be called the "natural tax" on the property. What's that? It's the cost of defending the land YOURSELF. IMHO, it tends to be much more expensive for most of us. It requires specialized skills most of us don't have--gunslinging, etc. Of course there are people willing to step in and do that for you. One of the most recognized organizations on the planet arose under just such a situation, where people were having a hard time defending their olive groves. This was in Sicily. I think you know where this is headed.
So, long story short, to paraphrase something often said about Unix: "Those who fail to understand government are doomed to reinvent it--poorly".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?