Trigger words: fairness
Indicator sentences: "Fairness" is a hard concept to nail down - you probably wouldn't consider a linear income tax to be fair.
Trigger words: progressive
Indicator sentences: That's not progressive, though.
Negotiation parts: That's just linear. Progressive would mean the amount of tax owed increases proportionately faster than the value of the property.
Trigger words: regressive
Indicator sentences: This isn't regressive.
Negotiation parts: A regressive property tax would mean only one thing - that the tax owed increases proportionately slower than the value of the property. It might be some definition of "effectively regressive" if rental properties tend to be owned by poorer people. I doubt this is the case either. >This isn't regressive. A regressive property tax would mean only one thing - that the tax owed increases proportionately slower than the value of the property. It might be some definition of "effectively regressive" if rental properties tend to be owned by poorer people. I doubt this is the case either. This gets to a question of tax incidence. I'm working under the assumption that the property tax is effectively incident on the renter, and that renters are on average lower income than owners.
Indicator sentences: That's not "progressive."
Negotiation parts: progressive Progressive means charging richer people more and poorer people less than they would pay given a linear scale. A fictional example of progressive taxes: $100k property might have no tax, $200k property might have 10% tax, and $300k property might have 40% tax. That's progressive: you give up a more-than-linear chunk as you go up the scale. It's a sort of socialism, redistributing proportionally more assets from those who can seemingly afford it, to those who can't.