You need honest and competent politicians for that to happen which we didn’t have in LA in the 70s. They were completely unfettered which is how we ended with the Prop 13 disaster. Of course I’m hugely benefiting from that now.
Any local taxes will lead to disparities between communities, as some communities house wealthier people than others.
When it comes to taxes in Ohio, the amount you pay is highly dependent on where you live.
We used to live in Kettering, Ohio, in a house on 0.28 acres. The property taxes are currently $3500/year for that property. The income tax in Kettering is 2.25%. If we still lived there, the income tax would be significantly higher than the property tax, and the total tax bill would be around $8600/year.
We currently live in a rural area of Ohio, in a township and not within any city limits. So no income tax; just property taxes. We live on 15 acres and pay $5600/year in property taxes. So we’re paying 35% less in taxes, and have 54X more property, vs. the place in Kettering. And as an aside, there’s nothing I miss about living in the city. I can understand the appeal for some people, but I will never live within city limits (for any city) again. Not because of the taxes, but because I have so much more freedom here. Can’t shoot the .50 BMG in the backyard in Kettering. 
Yeah I totally get the appeal of a township!
I live in a city that shares a school district with a village and two townships. People keep asking me (as a council member) when are we going to merge into one municipality. I say I totally don’t want to - people who live in townships like townships, people who live in cities like cities.
Many people have no idea what the differences are and some people don’t even know what type of place they live in (one township shares a name with the village) but if you KNOW you KNOW and you’re there for a reason.
Knowing how our city government works and how the townships work, I would never want to not live in a city! 
Exactly. It comes down to lifestyle. There are many people - perhaps most? - who would absolutely hate living in a rural area. And vice-versa.
Here’s something I don’t understand: people say that one advantage to living in a city or municipality is that they’re able to take advantage of “city services” that us in the rural areas don’t have. But what are these services, exactly? We get mail. Our road is maintained by the township.
I suppose one advantage to living in a city is that the city provides certain utilities like water, natural gas, and sewage. So is that the main advantage? I’m genuinely curious. Because if those are the main advantages, water and heat are reliable and inexpensive for most rural homeowners. The main issue would sewage. Even then, if I need to replace my sewage system, I believe I would still be way ahead (cost-wise) in the long run vs. paying for city sewage.
Quicker police and fire response. Short drive or even walk for shopping, medical care, etc.
That’s kind of a straw man the way you phrase it. I just like being close to restaurants and music venues. Actual city stuff might be proximity to things where you may have to show up on occasion like the court house. There are also parks that cities maintain and various festivals. I’ve never heard someone say that they are in the city for “services” though. I get that you don’t have use for such things so you don’t need to tell us.
A few years (Five? Eight?) after the passage of Proposition 13 in California, it’s effect on the tax revenue situation was much clearer, and there was at least one state politician who advocated what is known as a ‘split roll’. Homeowners would be taxed by one tax schedule, while investor/commercial/corporate owned properties would have a separate tax structure. IMO, it was probably the most fair way to distribute the property tax burden, but it was too arcane - and I suspect the politician that backed it lacked the charisma to sell it - to get any traction. The split-roll idea had dried up and blown away by the late ‘80s, IIRC.
There was a proposition in California in 2020 to create such a split roll. It failed by 48 to 52.
A township can use their property taxes to buy whatever they want. There’s some big townships out there that have enough to have their own police force and fire, a robust service department, all that stuff. Smaller townships sort of piecemeal it together and even smaller townships solely rely on the county for services.
Our one neighboring township has their own police force, and used to have their own FD but now they pay our city to staff their FD (they have to buy their own equipment). The other township also uses our FD but they use the county sheriff for their police force and they pay a lot of money for a lot less service.
No one in our area has their own water or sewer - even here in the city we’re under the purview of Cleveland Water and Akron sewer. But in our city our zoning requires water and sewer hookup, where in the townships I don’t think they do, so people out there can be on wells and septic.
Our city has a huge rec center and a few parks. The townships do have a couple of parks but they’re sparse - nowhere near the size of our park offerings.
The townships have tiny service departments and you can tell pretty quickly in the winter when you leave the city and hit a township. I don’t know what their plow situation is actually - not sure how much the county covers and how much they can cover with their little service departments.
Looking at the audit of the township next to ours, who has the same square miles with about 90% of the population…their revenue is about $8mm and ours is $23mm.
So if the city wants to do something, we can do it. People pay in to the city with property and income tax and we turn that in to “services.” For the township their services are limited as their revenue is limited. If they want to do something they need to pass a property tax levy, or get some grants (we get grants too, tho, just with less success due to less need), or wait for the county or state to do it.
Not many Burmese restaurants in the hinterlands 
.
Seriously - restaurants and urban-only stuff like museums are a big draw for me. I love the great outdoors - nature (mostly bird) photography is one of my hobbies. But I wouldn’t want to go full rural for more than a month at a time, because though I like cooking just fine, I’d miss getting casual Thai takeout.
Yep, the option of eating out with a very wide variety of choices is that significant to me. Also for where I live, even for cooking the option of shopping at a wide variety Farmer’s Markets and fancier supermarkets. I like being able to know I can walk into a shop and pick up some pancetta to cook with at pretty much any time. It’s the little things.
You buy sewage? Ewww.
This. I live in a city with an income tax and property tax but no school tax. I just got my property tax notice for 2026-27 and although my house is valued at $655K , my property tax will be about $5400. When my husband and I were both working, we paid around $3000 in city income taxes so maybe $8400 total. But now that we are both retired, we will pay nothing in city income taxes ( because all of our income is exempt). There’s no way I’m going to end up losing my house because I can’t pay the property tax.
Which is what I think this is about
The problem with reappraising at the point of sale is that if I can no longer afford to pay taxes on my house, then it’s probably going to be just as hard to afford the taxes if I want to sell my house and buy a smaller one. Give you an example with mine - when I bought my house almost 40 years ago property taxes were maybe $1200/year*. Let’s say the property tax is reassessed only upon a sale and I’m still paying $1200 - if I sell my house because I can’t afford the $1200, what am I going to buy with lower property taxes if it gets reassessed when i buy it?
\* It rises very slowly - I can only look up as far back at 2009 and the taxes were $4400 that year.
Yes. That’s why in California you get to keep your basis if you’re over 55 and buying a smaller house.
Ok, I was out of the game by then. I thought it was a good idea. I still think it’s a good idea. Thanks.
of course when landlords pay higher taxes, so do renters pay higher rents
Before proposition 13, California had good public schools. They were better in Beverly Hills than in Los Angeles but still, the schools had enough money. In the years since, they have gone downhill.
Prop 13 has nothing to do with that, if in fact it is true. Note that CA is in the top 5 of 50 states for overall tax burden. With it’s massive influx of Income and sales taxes, CA could have whatever kind of schools it wanted.
The big hit was Covid.
CA oddly ranks right in the middle of all states for it’s education-I say oddly sarcastically as that is where one would expect a very large state (population) to be.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california
Texas ranks 25.