My local public library has perhaps the best marketing of a tax-provided service ever. Patrons who check out items there receive a receipt that details the savings achieved by using the library. In 2024, my wife and I “saved” close to $5,000, according to this accounting.
There are some generous assumptions made to achieve that figure. The biggest, of course, is that we would have paid the retail price for every book we checked out. Then there’s the matter of the property tax we paid directly to the library, which would knock about $200 off the alleged savings.
Even with the creative accounting, I think it’s safe to say we came out ahead in the value proposition. The savings likely didn’t exceed the entire property tax liability of our home as the library would like us to believe, but we did receive a benefit far above the list price on our tax bill.
On the other hand, the vast majority of our property tax bill went to services we didn’t directly use but still benefitted from. Things like police and fire protection along with elementary schools and road repairs. All are vital to a thriving community. I believe people who keep our communities safe, run into burning buildings, educate the next generation and patch potholes are all underpaid.
Primarily because while we enjoy the services provided by taxes, we don’t like getting the bill. This is especially true of property taxes where the benefits are diffuse and not neatly allocated on the tab we receive each fall.
Logically, I understand property taxes are like a subscription service for ongoing services, similar to the bills I receive from my internet provider and Netflix. But I can cancel those services without consequence if I think their cost exceeds their value.
In reality, property taxes are a mix of policy and politics that we’ve collectively chosen through voting for city councilors, county commissioners and state legislators. I can’t say they always get things right, but they usually find the appropriate balance.
Often good politics are at odds with good policy. Generally speaking, our state’s property tax system is fair and balances the impact of taxation on various property uses in a judicious manner. I’m sure there’s room for improvement, but it could also be much worse.
A recent proposal to limit the valuation growth of residential and commercial property is one of those times where politics is running ahead of policy. While I would likely benefit from such a change from a tax standpoint, I don’t know if I’d come out ahead after accounting for the unintended consequences.
A cap on appraisals to limit the growth of property taxes is an attempt to manipulate the market. If the legislature wants to lower property taxes it has the power to reduce its current 21.5-mill levy that supports funding for public schools and university maintenance.
That would provide an immediate relief to homeowners, businesses and landowners. The proposal to limit appraisal growth wouldn’t undo any of the meteoric rise of years gone by but instead would slowly shift tax burdens from fast-growing areas to ones with slower growth. It would create an incentive for people to not move and levy taxes based not on a property’s actual value, but rather when it was purchased.
Older, more established people who happen to frequent their local library would pay far less than the newlyweds who bought the house next door despite both receiving similar services. If the legislature is determined to tinker with taxes, it should stick to setting rates rather than pursuing a policy that will create collateral damage in the future.
“Insight” is a weekly column published by Kansas Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization whose mission is to strengthen agriculture and the lives of Kansans through advocacy, education and service.
