system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Property taxes are the most unethical tax there is.

I understand the concept of owning land and paying a fee to the state for occupying such a limited resource but the part I do not agree upon is having your home included in the assessment.  If you want to turn that walk-in closet into a bathroom you have to pay a perpetual fee for bettering your home.  That's really all it is: a continual fee for improving your living space.  Think about how crazy that is. If I decide to spend my own money to build a new deck, the state makes me pay an additional fee, in perpetuity, as they somehow claim ownership to a small portion of the added value of my home that came at MY expense.

Again, I understand, and agree with, the basic premise of property taxes.  We as the owners of a limited amount of land in a community have a shared responsibility for the upkeep of that same community, in which we reside.  But how can the local government act as if they are owed more money should YOU decide to update that land on your own dime?
gpt
I agree that a land\-value tax is the conceptually cleanest, and arguably least distorting kind of tax, but there are a few solid reasons why including structure\-values in the calculation improves on a land\-value tax on some metrics:  
1. Usage of public goods\- an empty plot of soil is far less likely to use underground water supplies than a farm that digs into the water table to irrigate; a shack is going to use far less firefighter time than a mansion; a single\-person house is going to use far fewer police and public school services than a sky\-scraper with a thousand people.  Sure, you can add separate taxes for each of these resources, but that's far more complicated that just picking a proxy like "struture\-value" that correlates with all of these things. 

  
2. Allowing small farms and other traditionally respected heavy land users to keep functioning \- if we were to change the scheme to land\-value only, all of a sudden a lot of businesses would have to shut down because they had bought their land on the assumption that taxes would continue to function as promised.  The change would be unfair because it breaks an implicit promise, and potentially unsavory because we would have to shut down certain institutions we have come to value (maybe even if they are not the most efficient users of land).   


3. Progressiveness of taxation\- if you accept that there is a lot of luck involved in whether you happen to become a millionaire (even if you are just talking about ovarian lottery luck, of happening to be born with good genes and family), then you might reasonably choose to live in a world where if you happen to be born lucky you are willing to pay more for public goods, in exchange for having to pay less if you are unlucky (aside from fairness, this also results from the marginal dollar being worth far less to a millionaire than someone poor).   One good way to get rich people to pick up more of the tab for local schools and other services is to charge people with expensive houses more.