My FL community has CDDs in addition to property tax - I'd imagine those would continue to be levied, as they are distinct from property taxes.
My CA community has Mello Roos - I don't think these are technically property tax, either.
Like passing the collection basket a second time.
I'm sure CA would never eliminate a tax, but I wouldn't mind if FL did away with it.
Governor did point out that only homesteaders would qualify - so the benefit is for those who have a FL primary home, and for only one property. Seems like a great incentive to make a FL property your official residence.
Whether or not elimination happens or is on the table, it's actually a great time to rethink the foundations of what we tax, and what we use taxes for.
There's all kinds of problems with the way many jurisdictions handle property taxes. The assessment issues have been discussed, and how they're often corrupt or atrociously administered. Our property taxes have nearly doubled in 5 years, because, why? Are we getting more or better services as a results? Did the schools improve? Absolutely not on both counts.
There's a massive incentive to game the system by having non-profit ownership of property. All sorts of actual for-profit enterprises do this, and some others like schools, governments and churches abuse it like mad. Most economic development tools are based on property tax abatements, which cause all sorts of furor in local politics - some rightly, some not.
And I'm sure Aaron, you know there's been long interest in the urbanism world to switch to a land value tax vs the way most places do it, which is based on improvements. This is another major issue, since people are effectively punished for improving a property with a much higher tax bill (Again, to do what exactly?)
In the places I've lived, about 2/3 of the revenue goes to the local schools. That all sounds good to people who support public schools, but it also creates incentives for schools to not reform themselves or improve when they're not doing well. The money will still get collected no matter what. And of course there's all the other institutional trust issues with public school districts that are legit to discuss. So I wonder, if we end up in a world of full school choice (including public schools as one of those choices), what's the best way to fund it all? Don't have an answer here, but I think that's the proper question. Right now, many districts just gladly accept increased assessments, don't adjust their millage levy, and roll along with more revenue for no better educational outcomes.
So I just think there's plenty to discuss here, and really it's fine to question what all it is we're trying to fund with public services, and what's the best way to do it? I agree most people really want high-quality services, such as they are, but that doesn't mean our current way of doing this should go without serious inquiry and debate.
There's nothing conservative about making property ownership even more irrelevant... One could argue the end result of abolishing property taxes makes us less free eventually, when we become a society where consumption is the only measure of man.
Can relate to your points as a suburban conservative myself. I’m not interested in Tea Party style race to the bottom tax policies and gutting local government. Would rather my community look like Singapore in terms of its public goods, services, and amenities and that requires governing capacity.
The Republican Party has become synonymous with downward mobility.
I am often skeptical of your city-management positions but I'm mostly on your side on this one. I think eliminating property taxes in already low-tax jurisdictions like Indiana is a massive distraction from bigger work our legislatures should be taking on, like overhauling our terrible education systems towards academic content/mastery and away from broken credentialism and politics like DEI. That's something that ought to unite suburban and libertarian-type voters as the education is so bad it makes people anti-American and unable to compete in the workforce.
I also like having a safe and beautiful neighborhood in which to raise a family. I also think we need lots more police and policing to help solve the housing shortages by making lower-income/lower-cost neighborhoods livable and safe. Those are legitimate increased local tax costs.
A caveat: because of the doubling and even tripling of property values in the last five years of massive inflation, local jurisdictions are raking in double and triple the revenues without having double and triple the need for outlays. Sure, employee costs have increased due to healthcare and wage inflation, but not by 100-200 percent. I think that's a legitimate item to look at, especially when taxpayers are getting squeezed on every other living expense.
But I agree with you that property taxes are not illegitimate, because the American founders believed in property taxes. They were NOT libertarians and they did NOT see property taxes as "renting your homes from the government." Their social compact theory says we ALL have to give up a portion of our rights, INCLUDING some of our property in taxes, to be part of a society that gives us benefits in exchange, chief of which is securing our lives and property. You're right that some have adopted the mindset that they should get and not give from society, or that "I gave during my working years." The founders would not accept that.
Now, I do think that many governments are breaking their side of our social compact by not securing our lives and properties through robust policing, and by overtaxing us for items that are not just for government to be involved with (social welfare programs, crony capitalism). So it makes sense that some citizens say, look, if they don't uphold their end of the bargain, why should we?
Thanks, yes. Property titles in the US ultimately derive from the government - typically the government is the one that actually owned it - and property taxes were a reserved right in the sale. The Northwest Ordinance, for example, anticipates property taxes funding governments in the states it set up.
There has to be a solution where people can buy a trust that takes care of their property taxes without fear of getting priced out of their home but without getting a free ride
There is a possibility of one of these referendums in my state next year. The bulk of the property taxes, around two-thirds, goes to schools. I think ultimately that is why this movement is occurring.
- Institutional distrust is a theme here. The schools in this country have fed into a lot of that distrust.
- A lot of these recipients of property tax dollars, public education especially, are largely allied with one political party. It’s fair to ask if political contributions were 50-50 from these groups or if teachers were a swing vote, would this be movement happening?
- Institutions need to stop doing stupid things. Our local zoo, which receives property tax dollars, had a theft scandal on a grand scale. Local libraries have had controversial events that make people question their mission. Look at what happened to Bud Light: Bad news makes people re-examine what they think of you.
- It seems that any suggestion for reform is immediately rejected. A lot of leaders and employees of these institutions look down on the people who pay for their institutions to exist.
- A recent poll now shows that a majority of Americans believe a college education isn’t worth the cost. Should we be surprised that some feel the same way about K-12?
These institutions who receive property tax dollars need to do a better job engaging with taxpayers. Most of these groups do, but the largest recipients (schools) can do much better and be smarter when doing it. I think you have mentioned the check engine light as a warning for institutions. This movement fits that to a T.
Re: Our local zoo, which receives property tax dollars, had a theft scandal on a grand scale.
Why does that make people distrust the zoo? It was the victim of the situation not the perpetrator. And really, every institution is vulnerable to that sort of thing.
Re: Should we be surprised that some feel the same way about K-12?
Yes, it is surprising. College functions largely as a credentialing mill and the value of that credentialing isn't what it used to be. Schools, especially the earlier grades, do impart skills and knowledge that are vital to life. IMO, most of the shade thrown at schools comes from people who do have kids (either never did, or their kids are grown now) so out a narrow Scroogist attitude they feel they do not have a stake in schools.
It is interesting that the current rumblings about eliminating property taxes are coming from Florida and Texas, which are among the few states with no state income tax. They are going to have amazing sales tax rates if they have neither property taxes nor income taxes.
Their resistance to income taxes is what led to the high property taxes that they now find so onerous. Either cut spending or pay for spending.
Florida also has a huge number of retirees, so it's very salient in the state. And Texas legitimately does have very high property taxes. But you are right - they already eliminated the income tax. In my view, if you want to gear your state to eliminate one tax, it's the income tax.
I don't disagree with the main argument in your article but I wonder whether using Carmel as an example makes sense. Carmel is very wealthy and as such does not have the same funding issues as more humble towns and cities. Carmel is in an unusual position in which a large number of the people are net taxpayers. It is not that far off from the median household income of the Upper East Side in Manhattan. Carmel has a median household income nearly three times my zip code.
I think to most NYT readers they will read "Indiana" and not realize this.
At the lower end of the economy a lot of the taxation is rather performative and fake; designed for a country that does not exist anymore. What does it mean for governments to be shuffling social security payments back and forth as an ostensible "tax" on the "individuals" and "property owners"? What does it mean when some old people who use clever state law exceptions can dodge paying the property tax, but the less clever ones have to pay it out?
What does it mean for a state government to rely on "taxing" wealth that is sustained by massive direct and indirect government transfers? In my town, some of the most expensive plots with the highest property taxes are owned by surgeons, other doctors, and some highly specialized technicians. What sustains them? The federal government's unlimited medical beneficence. This is not really taxing commerce or property in the original sense of the terms but is rather slurping from the splashings of the federal entitlement state.
In consideration of such issues one must ask what taxes are for, what the GOP is even for, and what the purpose of the remnants of federalism are.
What you are pointing out is that a lot of "conservative" politicians are brave on proposing tax cuts and cowardly on proposing spending cuts. Every complaint in your post is about how the money is spent, not about the balance of different kinds of taxes.
Property taxes are imposed by states, and state politicians can't control federal spending. States should cut taxes more because increasingly they are just the local distribution center for federal money, and most of them do not provide meaningful services. As fewer people work in the US, more and more regions just become places where federal money changes hands to keep an illusion of activity going.
Re: At the lower end of the economy a lot of the taxation is rather performative and fake; designed for a country that does not exist anymore.
That is not true of property taxes- they are real taxes and flow to the coffers of local units of governance.
So far at least no one here has made the claim that "Renters don't have to pay property taxes"-- which is false as renters are paying the taxes indirectly included in their rent. In some jurisdictions a house not used as a primary residence by the owner is even taxed at a higher rate.
My boomer friends all bemoan their property taxes and cite the line "renting the place we already own." Not that they're high, which they're not here in IN, but that they exist at all. When I ask them how they'd like to have us all pay for the services we enjoy, they usually lack an answer.
Agree very much with this. And a related issue: if property taxes were abolished the state would have to make up the difference for essential services, which would basically result in local units of government losing whatever power and independence they currently have; the state capital would be calling all the shots and local government officers would become little more than mere functionaries of whoever is running the show there.
I agree that property taxes should not be abolished. I understand the argument that property property taxes are like ransom on property which someone has already paid for, but it is better to view property taxes as the ongoing cost of maintaining community services. These are services that a person moving into a community enjoys and therefore has a responsibility to pay for. These costs are tied to a person's district and cover things like parks, schools, and police and fire protection. It's easy to argue for the abolishment of taxes when many people are struggling with the cost of living. However, thriving communities require services, and if the money doesn't come from property taxes, it will have to come from somewhere else.
Don’t you worry that property taxes are a way that forces the Christian majority to fund the very negative world that hates them? In my community property taxes include tens of thousands of dollars for the public schools, which, aside from all the other ways public schooling is failing, are very much a negative world product these days. So many of our friends and neighbors sacrifice and save and work to afford tuition for much better private Christian schools - which they have to pay on top of paying for the public schools that hate them!
How about compromise of keeping property taxes that apply to the benefits you write about - while not forcing majority conservative parents to pay the salaries of overwhelmingly atheist leftist teachers unions? And there’s a great popular argument for fairness of not having to pay twice for schooling, let your money follow your children.
Yes, because they’re forced through property tax to pay for those schools anyway and can’t afford double tuition. If you’re gonna keep property taxes, how about at least reforming them so the parent can choose which school the money goes to?
This sounds like an argument for school vouchers or otherwise privatizing education (I'm all for it), not one for abolishing property taxes, which remain a large improvement over income taxes.
Re: Don’t you worry that property taxes are a way that forces the Christian majority to fund the very negative world that hates them?
If there's a Christian majority then they control those property taxes at election time. Property taxes are locally determined after all. And if there is only a minority (at least of people who are socially conservative MAGA-type Christians) then why should they expect to be in charge?
Public schooling is a basic public responsibility and yes, I would like to see more local control, especially vis-a-vis Washington. Alternatives to public schooling are a boutique option only for those with certain shorts of wherewithal. But any notion that we ought not have public schools because they might say something about evolution or forbid the bullying of gay kids is a non-starter. Might as well propose abolishing sewage systems or the fire department.
I mean I like Aaron so I keep coming back but the idea that the only way to fund these public goods is also one of the only types of taxation likely to force someone out of their home who has committed no crime is so disheartening.
What's your alternative for how to deal with people who fail to fulfill basic public responsibilities. As Aaron says we should take a look at especially onerous tax burdens, and I would also say we should consider ways to lighten the burden on retirees and the disabled (many states already do this). But if someone cannot afford their tax burden in the long haul, it's a clear sign they have bought too much house and imprudently have failed to save against an emergency exactly as if they cannot afford their mortgage payments. Like it not, failures of that sort do need to come with consequences.
I said we should have some special consideration for retired and disabled people. But when push comes to shove people need to prudent when they buy a house and stick with what they can afford.
No, nobody can predict the future and the idea that I should force someone out of their home because they didn’t predict the price of their house skyrocketing? That’s an infamy. If they want to sell on their own that’s up to them, but the idea that we have the right to force them out?
You know Naboth shouldn’t have had more vineyard than he could afford. It’s good Jezebel used the color of law to force him out. Should have been able to predict Ahab would want his vineyard.
My FL community has CDDs in addition to property tax - I'd imagine those would continue to be levied, as they are distinct from property taxes.
My CA community has Mello Roos - I don't think these are technically property tax, either.
Like passing the collection basket a second time.
I'm sure CA would never eliminate a tax, but I wouldn't mind if FL did away with it.
Governor did point out that only homesteaders would qualify - so the benefit is for those who have a FL primary home, and for only one property. Seems like a great incentive to make a FL property your official residence.
Whether or not elimination happens or is on the table, it's actually a great time to rethink the foundations of what we tax, and what we use taxes for.
There's all kinds of problems with the way many jurisdictions handle property taxes. The assessment issues have been discussed, and how they're often corrupt or atrociously administered. Our property taxes have nearly doubled in 5 years, because, why? Are we getting more or better services as a results? Did the schools improve? Absolutely not on both counts.
There's a massive incentive to game the system by having non-profit ownership of property. All sorts of actual for-profit enterprises do this, and some others like schools, governments and churches abuse it like mad. Most economic development tools are based on property tax abatements, which cause all sorts of furor in local politics - some rightly, some not.
And I'm sure Aaron, you know there's been long interest in the urbanism world to switch to a land value tax vs the way most places do it, which is based on improvements. This is another major issue, since people are effectively punished for improving a property with a much higher tax bill (Again, to do what exactly?)
In the places I've lived, about 2/3 of the revenue goes to the local schools. That all sounds good to people who support public schools, but it also creates incentives for schools to not reform themselves or improve when they're not doing well. The money will still get collected no matter what. And of course there's all the other institutional trust issues with public school districts that are legit to discuss. So I wonder, if we end up in a world of full school choice (including public schools as one of those choices), what's the best way to fund it all? Don't have an answer here, but I think that's the proper question. Right now, many districts just gladly accept increased assessments, don't adjust their millage levy, and roll along with more revenue for no better educational outcomes.
So I just think there's plenty to discuss here, and really it's fine to question what all it is we're trying to fund with public services, and what's the best way to do it? I agree most people really want high-quality services, such as they are, but that doesn't mean our current way of doing this should go without serious inquiry and debate.
There's nothing conservative about making property ownership even more irrelevant... One could argue the end result of abolishing property taxes makes us less free eventually, when we become a society where consumption is the only measure of man.
Can relate to your points as a suburban conservative myself. I’m not interested in Tea Party style race to the bottom tax policies and gutting local government. Would rather my community look like Singapore in terms of its public goods, services, and amenities and that requires governing capacity.
The Republican Party has become synonymous with downward mobility.
I am often skeptical of your city-management positions but I'm mostly on your side on this one. I think eliminating property taxes in already low-tax jurisdictions like Indiana is a massive distraction from bigger work our legislatures should be taking on, like overhauling our terrible education systems towards academic content/mastery and away from broken credentialism and politics like DEI. That's something that ought to unite suburban and libertarian-type voters as the education is so bad it makes people anti-American and unable to compete in the workforce.
I also like having a safe and beautiful neighborhood in which to raise a family. I also think we need lots more police and policing to help solve the housing shortages by making lower-income/lower-cost neighborhoods livable and safe. Those are legitimate increased local tax costs.
A caveat: because of the doubling and even tripling of property values in the last five years of massive inflation, local jurisdictions are raking in double and triple the revenues without having double and triple the need for outlays. Sure, employee costs have increased due to healthcare and wage inflation, but not by 100-200 percent. I think that's a legitimate item to look at, especially when taxpayers are getting squeezed on every other living expense.
But I agree with you that property taxes are not illegitimate, because the American founders believed in property taxes. They were NOT libertarians and they did NOT see property taxes as "renting your homes from the government." Their social compact theory says we ALL have to give up a portion of our rights, INCLUDING some of our property in taxes, to be part of a society that gives us benefits in exchange, chief of which is securing our lives and property. You're right that some have adopted the mindset that they should get and not give from society, or that "I gave during my working years." The founders would not accept that.
Now, I do think that many governments are breaking their side of our social compact by not securing our lives and properties through robust policing, and by overtaxing us for items that are not just for government to be involved with (social welfare programs, crony capitalism). So it makes sense that some citizens say, look, if they don't uphold their end of the bargain, why should we?
Thanks, yes. Property titles in the US ultimately derive from the government - typically the government is the one that actually owned it - and property taxes were a reserved right in the sale. The Northwest Ordinance, for example, anticipates property taxes funding governments in the states it set up.
There has to be a solution where people can buy a trust that takes care of their property taxes without fear of getting priced out of their home but without getting a free ride
There is a possibility of one of these referendums in my state next year. The bulk of the property taxes, around two-thirds, goes to schools. I think ultimately that is why this movement is occurring.
- Institutional distrust is a theme here. The schools in this country have fed into a lot of that distrust.
- A lot of these recipients of property tax dollars, public education especially, are largely allied with one political party. It’s fair to ask if political contributions were 50-50 from these groups or if teachers were a swing vote, would this be movement happening?
- Institutions need to stop doing stupid things. Our local zoo, which receives property tax dollars, had a theft scandal on a grand scale. Local libraries have had controversial events that make people question their mission. Look at what happened to Bud Light: Bad news makes people re-examine what they think of you.
- It seems that any suggestion for reform is immediately rejected. A lot of leaders and employees of these institutions look down on the people who pay for their institutions to exist.
- A recent poll now shows that a majority of Americans believe a college education isn’t worth the cost. Should we be surprised that some feel the same way about K-12?
These institutions who receive property tax dollars need to do a better job engaging with taxpayers. Most of these groups do, but the largest recipients (schools) can do much better and be smarter when doing it. I think you have mentioned the check engine light as a warning for institutions. This movement fits that to a T.
Re: Our local zoo, which receives property tax dollars, had a theft scandal on a grand scale.
Why does that make people distrust the zoo? It was the victim of the situation not the perpetrator. And really, every institution is vulnerable to that sort of thing.
Re: Should we be surprised that some feel the same way about K-12?
Yes, it is surprising. College functions largely as a credentialing mill and the value of that credentialing isn't what it used to be. Schools, especially the earlier grades, do impart skills and knowledge that are vital to life. IMO, most of the shade thrown at schools comes from people who do have kids (either never did, or their kids are grown now) so out a narrow Scroogist attitude they feel they do not have a stake in schools.
It is interesting that the current rumblings about eliminating property taxes are coming from Florida and Texas, which are among the few states with no state income tax. They are going to have amazing sales tax rates if they have neither property taxes nor income taxes.
Their resistance to income taxes is what led to the high property taxes that they now find so onerous. Either cut spending or pay for spending.
Florida also has a huge number of retirees, so it's very salient in the state. And Texas legitimately does have very high property taxes. But you are right - they already eliminated the income tax. In my view, if you want to gear your state to eliminate one tax, it's the income tax.
Trump did not perform weaker in Utah. His vote share in 2024 was higher than in 2020.
I don't disagree with the main argument in your article but I wonder whether using Carmel as an example makes sense. Carmel is very wealthy and as such does not have the same funding issues as more humble towns and cities. Carmel is in an unusual position in which a large number of the people are net taxpayers. It is not that far off from the median household income of the Upper East Side in Manhattan. Carmel has a median household income nearly three times my zip code.
I think to most NYT readers they will read "Indiana" and not realize this.
At the lower end of the economy a lot of the taxation is rather performative and fake; designed for a country that does not exist anymore. What does it mean for governments to be shuffling social security payments back and forth as an ostensible "tax" on the "individuals" and "property owners"? What does it mean when some old people who use clever state law exceptions can dodge paying the property tax, but the less clever ones have to pay it out?
What does it mean for a state government to rely on "taxing" wealth that is sustained by massive direct and indirect government transfers? In my town, some of the most expensive plots with the highest property taxes are owned by surgeons, other doctors, and some highly specialized technicians. What sustains them? The federal government's unlimited medical beneficence. This is not really taxing commerce or property in the original sense of the terms but is rather slurping from the splashings of the federal entitlement state.
In consideration of such issues one must ask what taxes are for, what the GOP is even for, and what the purpose of the remnants of federalism are.
What you are pointing out is that a lot of "conservative" politicians are brave on proposing tax cuts and cowardly on proposing spending cuts. Every complaint in your post is about how the money is spent, not about the balance of different kinds of taxes.
Property taxes are imposed by states, and state politicians can't control federal spending. States should cut taxes more because increasingly they are just the local distribution center for federal money, and most of them do not provide meaningful services. As fewer people work in the US, more and more regions just become places where federal money changes hands to keep an illusion of activity going.
Re: At the lower end of the economy a lot of the taxation is rather performative and fake; designed for a country that does not exist anymore.
That is not true of property taxes- they are real taxes and flow to the coffers of local units of governance.
So far at least no one here has made the claim that "Renters don't have to pay property taxes"-- which is false as renters are paying the taxes indirectly included in their rent. In some jurisdictions a house not used as a primary residence by the owner is even taxed at a higher rate.
I loved the article.
My boomer friends all bemoan their property taxes and cite the line "renting the place we already own." Not that they're high, which they're not here in IN, but that they exist at all. When I ask them how they'd like to have us all pay for the services we enjoy, they usually lack an answer.
Agree very much with this. And a related issue: if property taxes were abolished the state would have to make up the difference for essential services, which would basically result in local units of government losing whatever power and independence they currently have; the state capital would be calling all the shots and local government officers would become little more than mere functionaries of whoever is running the show there.
I agree that property taxes should not be abolished. I understand the argument that property property taxes are like ransom on property which someone has already paid for, but it is better to view property taxes as the ongoing cost of maintaining community services. These are services that a person moving into a community enjoys and therefore has a responsibility to pay for. These costs are tied to a person's district and cover things like parks, schools, and police and fire protection. It's easy to argue for the abolishment of taxes when many people are struggling with the cost of living. However, thriving communities require services, and if the money doesn't come from property taxes, it will have to come from somewhere else.
Of all the hills to die on.
They publish you because you help them, Aaron.
Thank you for your work on this.
Don’t you worry that property taxes are a way that forces the Christian majority to fund the very negative world that hates them? In my community property taxes include tens of thousands of dollars for the public schools, which, aside from all the other ways public schooling is failing, are very much a negative world product these days. So many of our friends and neighbors sacrifice and save and work to afford tuition for much better private Christian schools - which they have to pay on top of paying for the public schools that hate them!
How about compromise of keeping property taxes that apply to the benefits you write about - while not forcing majority conservative parents to pay the salaries of overwhelmingly atheist leftist teachers unions? And there’s a great popular argument for fairness of not having to pay twice for schooling, let your money follow your children.
I think it would be very difficult practically to eliminate public education. The vast majority of kids go to public schools.
Yes, because they’re forced through property tax to pay for those schools anyway and can’t afford double tuition. If you’re gonna keep property taxes, how about at least reforming them so the parent can choose which school the money goes to?
This sounds like an argument for school vouchers or otherwise privatizing education (I'm all for it), not one for abolishing property taxes, which remain a large improvement over income taxes.
Re: Don’t you worry that property taxes are a way that forces the Christian majority to fund the very negative world that hates them?
If there's a Christian majority then they control those property taxes at election time. Property taxes are locally determined after all. And if there is only a minority (at least of people who are socially conservative MAGA-type Christians) then why should they expect to be in charge?
Public schooling is a basic public responsibility and yes, I would like to see more local control, especially vis-a-vis Washington. Alternatives to public schooling are a boutique option only for those with certain shorts of wherewithal. But any notion that we ought not have public schools because they might say something about evolution or forbid the bullying of gay kids is a non-starter. Might as well propose abolishing sewage systems or the fire department.
Merry Christmas, Jon!
I mean I like Aaron so I keep coming back but the idea that the only way to fund these public goods is also one of the only types of taxation likely to force someone out of their home who has committed no crime is so disheartening.
What's your alternative for how to deal with people who fail to fulfill basic public responsibilities. As Aaron says we should take a look at especially onerous tax burdens, and I would also say we should consider ways to lighten the burden on retirees and the disabled (many states already do this). But if someone cannot afford their tax burden in the long haul, it's a clear sign they have bought too much house and imprudently have failed to save against an emergency exactly as if they cannot afford their mortgage payments. Like it not, failures of that sort do need to come with consequences.
Here’s my alternative: get lost I’m not taking granny’s house because the neighborhood gentrified.
I said we should have some special consideration for retired and disabled people. But when push comes to shove people need to prudent when they buy a house and stick with what they can afford.
No, nobody can predict the future and the idea that I should force someone out of their home because they didn’t predict the price of their house skyrocketing? That’s an infamy. If they want to sell on their own that’s up to them, but the idea that we have the right to force them out?
You know Naboth shouldn’t have had more vineyard than he could afford. It’s good Jezebel used the color of law to force him out. Should have been able to predict Ahab would want his vineyard.
Many states limit tax increases for current residents. That's been true for a good long time.
What would you propose as an alternative to Aaron's position?