Most countries dont have such high property taxes that the USA does. In London I paid $2500 a year in council tax and thought that was a lot of money, even though that was about 0.25%. Meanwhile NYC suburbs I'm now paying that every two months.
My aunt and uncle used to live in Bronxville, a suburb of NYC (it's part of Eastchester, which is in turn part of Westchester... NY municipal areas are confusing). They moved out in 2003, in large part because they were paying $25k/year in property taxes and they were both retired empty-nesters.
When they told this to me and my mom, we both thought it was insane. I was born in Texas, and my mom has lived in Texas since 1979. I'm not a homeowner myself (I rent a townhouse), but my mom is, and her property taxes in Dallas are around the same as what you paid in London.
This is one of the reasons I intend to stay in Texas for the rest of my life. Northern coastal cities are just completely insane in terms of expenses. New York is a wonderful place to visit, but I'd never live there.
Meanwhile, people like me would love to be able to live in Bronxville or Scarsdale for the school systems.
It makes no sense to live there when you have no school age children since you can move a few blocks away in one of the surrounding towns and still have the quality of life.
But I am sure you paid more in income taxes in London. Which policy do you prefer? In my opinion taxing wealth is always a better idea than taxing income..
I am generally inclined to agree with your last point, however it is possibly to be wealthy but to have very little liquidity. It has been the case that folks in the US who are on a fixed income (e.g. Social Security or disability) end up losing their home simply because they can't pay their property taxes and eat at the same time. It's rare but it has happened and will continue to happen as long as property taxes remain the large source of revenue that they are for state and local governments.
Many jurisdictions have worked around this by allowing elderly homeowners to defer property taxes on their residence until they move/sell/die. It's a great concept, but can cause a liquidity issue should a large percentage of total property taxes be deferred for years or decades.
Where I live, you have to be 65+ and own 60+% equity in the home. The problem is that some old rich people are moving in, paying cash for property, and then deferring. They aren't exactly the intended beneficiaries of the scheme.
Taxing income makes it harder for first generation hard working high income earners to purchase a house, whereas real estate gets passed down from generation to generation and increasing its value along the way.. Only making rich people richer..
Then you get people paying far more in taxes just because their neighborhood became popular.
If you want to tax idle wealthy people, it's simple: tax their investments. This means a stock transaction tax, since so much wealth is tied up in stocks. You can also tax additional real estate properties (i.e. no property tax for a primary residence, but tax vacation homes, rental houses, etc.).
