Random thought. What if we taxed property based on the area per person of the property, as opposed to sale value?

Edit and quick intro to those who mostly rent: most real property in the US, especially residential property, is taxed yearly based on some variation of something called "fair market value," usually assessed by a local tax assessor's office

I'm proposing that a property would be taxed for every square meter of space per person in the designated property unit. It can't be totally simplified, but should be fairly straightforward. There could also be progressive brackets. It might not make make sense to apply it strictly per person, but rather for a typical use. That is, we would assume "single family residential" properties to house 3.4 (totally made up number) people per house and property.

The goal of this is to find a fair, market-driven incentive to build density into urban cores.

A similar approach could be applied to commercial space (but probably not industrial).

It could be coupled with a sales tax (currently missing in most real property tax regimes, at least in the US) to capture runaway property valuations in certain jurisdictions.

Alternatively, we could drop the property value based tax rate (but not eliminate it), and then add a per person-area surcharge.

It's not meant to increase revenue, although it could certainly be used that way. It could also be use to decrease revenue, and maybe that would be a good way to sell it. But at the end of the day, developers and residents would both have an incentive to pursue as dense development as possible, even if there is not a density driving pressure of desirablity, which only exists in a few really cool urban cores.

I feel like I have a basic understanding of tax credits, but nothing so far as would make the most sense in what I want to know: I'm looking into buying a new car, and it looks like I can get a 7500 tax credit for the car I'm interested in buying. My understanding is that these credits are "non-refundable" meaning I don't actually get that money back, but how does it still work? I pay into the income tax (I know, I don't want to know the benefits of doing this vs not, it's just easier for me to pay more and get some back when the time comes), so I always get a refund. Would my refund be higher then because I get a credit on the taxes that I paid in? Or would it be the same and my tax liability would be reduced?

I need someone to explain this to me like I'm 5, please!

https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nonprofit-hospitals-tax-breaks-community-benefit/

POTTSTOWN, Pa. — The public school system here had to scramble in 2018 when the local hospital, newly purchased, was converted to a tax-exempt nonprofit entity.

The takeover by Tower Health meant the 219-bed Pottstown Hospital no longer had to pay federal and state taxes. It also no longer had to pay local property taxes, taking away more than $900,000 a year from the already underfunded Pottstown School District, school officials said.

The district, about an hour’s drive from Philadelphia, had no choice but to trim expenses. It cut teacher aide positions and eliminated middle school foreign language classes.

“We have less curriculum, less coaches, less transportation,” said Superintendent Stephen Rodriguez.

The school system appealed Pottstown Hospital’s new nonprofit status, and earlier this year a state court struck down the facility’s property tax break. It cited the “eye-popping” compensation for multiple Tower Health executives as contrary to how Pennsylvania law defines a charity.

The court decision, which Tower Health is appealing, stunned the nonprofit hospital industry, which includes roughly 3,000 nongovernment tax-exempt hospitals nationwide.

“The ruling sent a warning shot to all nonprofit hospitals, highlighting that their state and local tax exemptions, which are often greater than their federal income tax exemptions, can be challenged by state and local courts,” said Ge Bai, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University.

The Pottstown case reflects the growing scrutiny of how much the nation’s nonprofit hospitals spend — and on what — to justify billions in state and federal tax breaks. In exchange for these savings, hospitals are supposed to provide community benefits, like care for those who can’t afford it and free health screenings.

More than a dozen states have considered or passed legislation to better define charity care, to increase transparency about the benefits hospitals provide, or, in some cases, to set minimum financial thresholds for charitable help to their communities.

The growing interest in how tax-exempt hospitals operate — from lawmakers, the public, and the media — has coincided with a stubborn increase in consumers’ medical debt. KFF Health News reported last year that more than 100 million Americans are saddled with medical bills they can’t pay, and has documented aggressive bill-collection practices by hospitals, many of them nonprofits.

(article continues)

So, if I have stocks that were purchased during the class window of a class action lawsuit, is it okay for me to sell them?

It's not a large amount of money at stake here, but it'd also be nice to be able to recoup some of the losses I had due to the misleading information that caused me to buy the stock and ive filled out the forms but they didnt say anything about future actions just asked when i bought or sold any at the time of the suit. I am not sure if it's okay to sell them or if I should hold them.

Any one have recommendations? This is US stock exchange, and if I did sell they'd be at a loss and I have sold other stocks at profit so I would be looking at capturing the losses on my taxes.