Simpler is not always better. But neither is complex inherently superior.

That thought comes courtesy of reading a piece from Judy Harvey, editor for The Herald-News, explaining property assessment equalization factors with information from the state revenue department.

The factor, or multiplier, is written into state law, “is important because many of the state’s 6,600 local taxing districts, such as school, fire protection and junior college districts, overlap county lines,” Harvey wrote. “Without equalization, taxpayers with comparable properties in different counties could face inequitable tax burdens.”

That part isn’t exactly simple, but it’s manageable compared to the ensuing complexity:

“Illinois law requires property to be assessed at one-third of its market value. Farm property is assessed differently, with homesites and dwellings subject to regular assessing and equalization procedures, while farmland and farm buildings are valued according to productivity-based standards …

“The annual equalization factor is determined by comparing the sales prices of properties sold over the past three years with the assessed values set by the county supervisor of assessments or county assessor. When the three-year average level of assessment equals one-third of market value, the factor is 1.0000.

“Assessments in Kendall County are currently at 33.46% of market value, based on sales from 2022, 2023 and 2024. The final multiplier factor applies to 2025 taxes payable in 2026.”

Surely some very smart people have handy explanations for these calculations being so significant in the average Illinoisan’s property tax obligation. But I’ve read those three paragraphs six times, only growing stronger in concluding that the confusion is a feature of a system designed to separate people from what they know to be true and what they pay.

I know all 17 applicable taxing bodies (because I save PDFs from the county) and understand the math of getting from “fair market value” to a dollar amount owed to each entity. I even grasp why we pay 2025 taxes in 2026.

Further, I understand what my house is worth because we just bought it last summer. But I don’t intend to sell it – ever, really, I am quite tired of moving – and so my knowledge of the local market will inherently diminish, and with it a practical concept of value.

We can’t just tax property at the purchase price forever, but the current system has inadequate tolerance for a distinction between what someone owns and their actual cash flow, while also being insufficiently responsive to economic volatility and larger market forces.

Also, it’s just plain confusing. And I support paying fair shares for good schools, libraries, fire departments and more, understanding the quality of each helps boost property value (even if I’m not moving).

What are the good arguments against drastic reform?

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.