Your property tax would be assessed based on the value of your home so the homeowner would be paying for it. Or if nothing happens to theirs a bunch of poorer homes. It’d work just like how insurance does. There’s just no profit motive so you don’t have to deal with the shenanigans from that.
The price should be [cost to rebuild an identical house] * [expected monthly risk of catching fire]
Invest the yearly excess into something stable to pay for when a large wildfire happens and a large amount has to be paid.
Property values shouldn’t be part of the equation because they’re massively overinflated and rather useless.
The risk part is extremely important because houses built out of matches should probably cost more to insure than houses built with fire safety in mind.
I mean I’m not an insurance adjuster so if your method is better than sure. The point is that what you were taxed for your house would pay for the insurance. So a more expensive house would pay more (and contribute more to the overall system when they didn’t have a fire).
What I meant is that more expensive houses should pay more insurance - just that the property value of the house is usually not the correct metric for determining whether a house is expensive. After all, it takes hardly any cost to reconstruct a lawn even though every square foot of lawn raises the property value.
Plus it can help prevent gentrification to avoid your insurance skyrocketing the moment an investor turns every property in your neighborhood into luxury flats.
Your property tax would be assessed based on the value of your home so the homeowner would be paying for it. Or if nothing happens to theirs a bunch of poorer homes. It’d work just like how insurance does. There’s just no profit motive so you don’t have to deal with the shenanigans from that.
The price should be [cost to rebuild an identical house] * [expected monthly risk of catching fire]
Invest the yearly excess into something stable to pay for when a large wildfire happens and a large amount has to be paid.
Property values shouldn’t be part of the equation because they’re massively overinflated and rather useless.
The risk part is extremely important because houses built out of matches should probably cost more to insure than houses built with fire safety in mind.
I mean I’m not an insurance adjuster so if your method is better than sure. The point is that what you were taxed for your house would pay for the insurance. So a more expensive house would pay more (and contribute more to the overall system when they didn’t have a fire).
Sorry, I wasn’t quite clear.
What I meant is that more expensive houses should pay more insurance - just that the property value of the house is usually not the correct metric for determining whether a house is expensive. After all, it takes hardly any cost to reconstruct a lawn even though every square foot of lawn raises the property value.
Plus it can help prevent gentrification to avoid your insurance skyrocketing the moment an investor turns every property in your neighborhood into luxury flats.
I think we’re on the same page.