Seems like the article starts with the conclusion that the disparity is explicitly racially motivate, and works backward.
Why not work from a premise that the outcome is disparate but the reasons might be more nuanced? (that was rhetorical. I know why they didn't)
What about:
- Assessors don't properly account for disparate crime levels for properties that are similar on paper?
- Minorities are priced out of gentrifying neighborhoods because of rapid price increases. This is why Prop 13 happened in CA in the first place, so middle class folk wouldn't be taxed out of their homes when they exploded in value.
- Minorities don't know they can appeal their assessment. Who's responsibility is it to know that? Is there evidence that a state actively attempts to hide this info?
- If they control for race, would the numbers show that white people who live in similarly high crime areas also pay disproportionate property tax? Could it be that black and Hispanic people disproportionately live in higher crime areas, and it is the lack of including crime rates in neighborhoods when assessing taxes is a primary driver if this effect?
Rightfully?
Want a reason why this country is run the way it is? This kind of tax policy is a huge reason. We have a huge swath of people who are shielded from the effects of poor spending and governance. In fact, they get the benefit without any of the cost.
It creates a horrible third payer situation. Two groups (in this case non-taxpayers and big government politicians/lobbyists) collude to take money from another group (taxpayers) to mutually benefit themselves. Non-taxpayers get all the government benefits they want and politicians/lobbyists get a reliable bloc of voters for their favored policies.
This nation will only survive if every last one of us has skin in the game, including and especially our personal wealth. Why do we like to see financial advisers disclose their personal investments before taking their advice? It's because people have a much easier time throwing other people's money away.
I'd like to see this data adjusted for comparative cost of living. I don't think that was done here. E.g. Mormons in UT earning 75k are essentially in the same earning bracket as Hindus in Silicon Valley making 100k+.
Why not work from a premise that the outcome is disparate but the reasons might be more nuanced? (that was rhetorical. I know why they didn't) What about:
- Assessors don't properly account for disparate crime levels for properties that are similar on paper?
- Minorities are priced out of gentrifying neighborhoods because of rapid price increases. This is why Prop 13 happened in CA in the first place, so middle class folk wouldn't be taxed out of their homes when they exploded in value.
- Minorities don't know they can appeal their assessment. Who's responsibility is it to know that? Is there evidence that a state actively attempts to hide this info?
- If they control for race, would the numbers show that white people who live in similarly high crime areas also pay disproportionate property tax? Could it be that black and Hispanic people disproportionately live in higher crime areas, and it is the lack of including crime rates in neighborhoods when assessing taxes is a primary driver if this effect?