I think it's helpful to stay up-to-date myself. But also not forget how we got here and what it was like before.

>Property taxes currently generate 70 percent of all local tax revenue,

That's what I'm pointing out.

How badly it can get out of hand. Not because it's unchecked, just because it exists at all and can't be kept down to insignificance through ordinary ups & downs. Especially not over the very long term.

That's what makes it unsustainable.

At least to where they tear down more perfectly strong buildings than ever.

And 70% is not nearly enough in case nobody noticed.

It's too late now. You could calculate when 100% won't be enough, or even 110%.

That's not as drastic as it sounds though. It only means your own taxes are bound to rise 30 to 40% above what they are now by the same time. But to the taxing authorities, it will be just a drop in the bucket.

Most people who can afford what they are paying now will be able to handle that much of an increase though. So maybe only a few thousand more will lose their homes and no way it should be any vast percentage wiped out completely.

But could continue to add to the homeless population, and maybe 30 to 40% more than there is now would be a good estimate.

Still only a few thousand families, which I guess some will figure is the least bad in a city this size.

Originaly, the Lords crafting the levy scheme didn't need the money at all. They just wanted a way to get the land.

And it only affected the very most unfortunate who sadly couldn't even afford to pay such an insignificant pittance.

Other than commerce, so far nobody has proposed any other way for any tax to more accurately track prosperity, and therefore the ability for all to pay as long as there is any prosperity left at all under the worst of conditions.

Without compromising or threatening any previous earnings or property which have always been completely unfair to tax more than once.

Probably a good time to mention that I always pay more than my fair share because I like to be more than fair. It's only a few percent so I just work a few percent more and then some so I'm fine. But not everybody can do that.

Perhaps the high-and-always-increasing-tax enthusiasts don't want anybody to have any permanent assets, ever.

One thing's for sure, when prosperity booms, the revenue from commerce alone booms in exact tandem with it.

Come up with anything else like that and I'm all ears :)

Certainly property taxes can even overshoot commerce in the case of a real estate bubble, but if that's the least bad it sure doesn't work out like the taxation tracks when actual money is made very much at all. Rather like taxing anything of value just because it exists. Who ever thought of that? If you whittle away at things over and over again eventually they cease to exist.

Not that I would want to repeal property tax overnight, I like stability for the prosperity that has already been earned more so than the (remote) possibility of future prosperity as a result of hare-brained schemes from dream salesmen.

Things like this which are too big to fail need to be carefully rolled back before they fail catastrophically from their own weight.

>all of which would have to be replaced with other taxes

Which would be ideal as long as earned assets could only be taxed once, when the commerce occurred. Repeat commerce would be paying all the bills as it repeats in an ongoing way as long as any wealth is being created. With no chipping away of anything else already built by long hard work.

With a revenue-neutral bottom line local operations would be no different, so the dramatically reduced risk to the working or retired homeowner would be without financial cost.

You can't get much cheaper than that :)

When people can't even see any way that a complete rollback could ever be set into motion, or any rollback, I take that as an indication they lack the responsible nature to steward prosperity to any net taxpayer benefit whatsoever. As has consistently been seen among politicians with no exceptions in Texas for decades.