Property tax overturned by the Federal Constitutional Court

The Federal Constitutional Court is overturning the property tax today. The court gives the legislature until the end of 2019 to draft it in such a way that it corresponds to the actual value of the plots/buildings and prohibits referencing standard values from 1964 or even 1935.
If this law succeeds by the end of 2019, the old regulation may be used until 2024 because time will be given for a new property valuation. If it does not succeed, there will be no more property tax.
The purpose of the property tax was and is to finance municipalities so that they can provide infrastructure for the properties: what then about the development contributions? That surely is worth a lawsuit as well. Those should not exist then.
The amount should be based on the value of the land (undeveloped/agricultural property tax A) or the house on it (variant B). Therefore, one cannot work with values from 1964 or 1935. A building plot directly at the wall was not worth much in 1964, but today....Karsten

The purpose of the property tax was and is to finance municipalities so that they can provide infrastructure for the properties: So what about the development contributions? A lawsuit would certainly be worthwhile. Those shouldn't exist then.

If you assume that, then rather the opposite comes out: The municipality now recovers *every* expense from the local residents as an allocation.

In any case, I am of the opinion that the whole story with the property tax has been pushed far too much in the media. No matter what a new calculation looks like, in the end there will hardly be any change in total revenue. In some areas it will be a little more expensive, in others a little cheaper. Because the municipalities have so far been able to set the rate completely arbitrarily via the assessment rate, they could have implemented such an intention to burden the citizens more or less even now without any court. So hardly anything will change. Except maybe that one or another municipality wants to somewhat fix its budget and takes the opportunity to now shift the blame to the Federal Constitutional Court. Someone will probably believe that.

Yes, I also think that in the end, it will be the same for most people overall, only the calculation will change. Somehow it’s also understandable that it was nonsense before :)

It's about equality. It is unfair that an old villa on parkland generates less or the same tax burden as a single-family house in a new development area. However, the proposal from the states deepens this inequality even further by charging a uniform price for the land and letting the price of the building be the actual deciding factor. This can become quite bad for a new building (whether worse than now is the question), whereas the old villa can prove construction costs from the year it was built (possibly by expert opinion) and then further reduce the current value due to its age. Overall, this is just as stupid as the existing regulation. No wonder this intellectual concoction has not been passed so far.

I think a pragmatic approach is assessment based on the standard land value. The data is available, as is the size of the property. Maybe a factor for the type of house on it could be added to mix in a social component (single-family house more expensive than terraced house, etc.).

But it will probably turn into a bureaucratic monster with a thousand special cases again.

I think a pragmatic approach is the assessment based on the standard land value. The data is available for this, as is the size of the plot. Maybe add a factor for the type of house on it, to mix in a social component (single-family house more expensive than a terraced house, etc.).

But then you could just call a spade a spade and label it "property wealth tax," right? Because that's exactly what it is if the building on it is also taken into account. For me, in terms of the PROPERTY tax, the size and location of the plot would actually be decisive - and nothing else. Let's wait and see what comes.

But then you could just call a spade a spade and label it as “real estate wealth tax,” right? Because that's exactly what it is if the place it stands on is to be included as well. For me, in terms of PROPERTY tax, the size and location of the land would actually be decisive - and nothing else.

That's how it is today. And that's way too complicated/time-consuming and therefore not done as the existing law requires. That's why flat-rate approaches are necessary. Standard land value / 100 * plot area = tax per year or something like that. And if the red socks then fiddle around with it, you can add flat-rate (!) factors like the type of house. Or the living space. All existing information, nothing new. It can be calculated automatically for the 35 million data sets and done. But nobody understands digitization there, so it will be something complicated again where a bunch of officials generate contestable assessments that in doubt end up before a judge again.