The best "assessor" is the property owner.
some terminology:
This form of property-tax can be called
Self-Assessment -- meaning the owner effectively fixes the value of the property rather than the tax assessor.
And the term "tax-assessor" is literally incorrect. This public official is really assessing the
value of the property rather than the tax. So when we use the term "tax-assessor" it's really a misnomer. We have to stick to this term, but this person is not really a tax-assessor at all, but a property value assessor whose arbitrary assessed value is then used to fix the tax to be paid.
A major problem with the solution in the OP is that a potential buyer would have to inspect and make offers to many properties before they make one to someone who wants to accept it.
That's already what happens, though maybe self-assessment would make it happen more than it does already.
It depends on the particular conditions/rules. Perhaps instead of requiring 3 offers before the owner must sell, it would be only 2, or even just one but with the owner having ample opportunity to revise the selling price upward. So an offer can be refused. And if there's too many refusals, the rules can probably be changed to fix this. There might even be some form of penalty if some deadline is missed, so an owner can back up and do a correction. One way or another, an owner has an obligation to declare a realistic selling price.
Even in the present system a seller doesn't necessarily have to sell immediately to the first buyer who pops up.
Initially this new form of value-assessment, self-assessment, might be limited to only upper-value properties, such as above 1 million or above 5 million value, as a test, before being applied to all properties.
This will make buying and selling very expensive.
It's already very expensive. The current arbitrary assessing process is very expensive, unless it's done without any information or examination by the assessor who has to decide what the value is. Are all the properties of the same size and in the same location equal in value? If not, then how does the assessor go about judging between them to determine the value of this property in comparison to that one?
What are all the processes involved in determining that your property is more valuable (or less) than the one across the street or a block or half-mile away? The age might be a factor, the plumbing, the electrical wiring, the view, noise factors, the proximity to other buildings and streets and intersections and commerce and transportation, landscaping, vacant lots, types of other structures (apartment buildings or single-family, higher- or lower-density, commercial or residential) -- there is really an endless list of factors, depending on what buyers are seeking.
The state cannot dictate these factors to the buyers, but it would have to identify all the pertinent ones in each case, for individual buyers, to determine the real value for each property. Obviously it's not possible to calculate an exact value in every case, but even coming close is impossible, so that the assessor's assigned value cannot be taken seriously as being close to the real market value.
The assessor cannot really account for all the factors, or in a case where they try, the cost to society has to be excessive -- paying the costs necessary for all the information-gathering -- the whole process being much more expensive than a market-based system would be, which would leave it up to the buyers and sellers to investigate all the factors important to them.
Some buyers individually care extra about particular factors, which all goes into driving the real value of the property to its natural level, to the true market price. Much of the buyer's decision is based on guesswork, but more investigating and getting more information always increases the chance of getting a more predictable outcome.
The only way the current tax-assessor process can be less expensive is if it leaves out of account many actual factors determining the market value. Whereas taking more account of all the factors, as individual buyers and sellers do automatically, makes the assessment process more true to its purpose, which is to put the tax level in line with the real property value.
Admittedly, the concrete benefit of doing this is to
INCREASE the total revenue from property tax, by getting some under-valued properties up to a higher tax bracket, which is a very legitimate goal to benefit all society which requires public revenue to pay for public needs, including to reduce reliance on other taxes in some cases.
It's not clear that such a tax system would be more "expensive" to the buyers and sellers, other than probably increasing some property taxes on under-valued properties. If something in the system causes more expense to the buyers, this can probably be corrected by adjusting the terms, such as the amount of deposit from buyers, or other terms requiring the owner to sell, or allowing the owner to increase the selling price (self-assessed value) to avoid having to sell.
Some burden on owners to avoid selling has to be corrected by the owners themselves posting a realistic selling price, rather than under-valuing the property. This is up to each owner, and it's best if that problem is left to each individual owner rather than having the tax assessors presume to assign the value arbitrarily as they do now.
It's not clear that such self-assessment has to make buying more "expensive" than it already is. The rules can be adjusted to mostly prevent this.
A better solution is to have everything open. It should be easy to find out how much property taxes are for any property. Then if you find your neighbour is paying far less than what you are then you should be able to find out why.
That may already be the case, at least officially. Are there cases of some owners being over-taxed compared to their neighbor? Where that seems to be so, there could very well be a legitimate reason for it, either due to real market value, or based on the current assessing procedure.
In any case, a self-assessment system is the best correction, if something needs correcting.
What's not legitimate is for any property higher in demand being under-assessed, or lower in demand being over-assessed, in relation to the real market value determined by the particular demand of potential buyers. There can be many factors causing an inappropriate discrepancy, all of which would be fixed by a self-assessment system instead of the current arbitrary "tax-assessor" system.
And in a case where
. . . you find your neighbour is paying far less than what you are then you should be able to find out why
the most efficient correction is that of self-assessment where you adjust your selling price downward, because you apparently set your price higher than necessary to avoid having to sell. And this correction requires no battle with some official making an arbitrary decision, because you as owner have total control over the assessed value.
Revenue will then go down and enquiries will be made.
Maybe or maybe not in the current "tax-assessor" system. You are subject to this official's arbitrary judgment of your property's value.
But in a self-assessment system, a case where a property is over-valued (by the owner) is easily corrected without any hassle from those in power.
what a surprise... not.
