yet you pay property tax
Defined as:
Something owned; a possession
Yes you OWN the land but the government OWNs you because we gave them the right to do so and don't have the balls to take it back and the stupidity of voters
yet you pay property tax
Defined as:
Something owned; a possession
Yes you OWN the land but the government OWNs you because we gave them the right to do so and don't have the balls to take it back and the stupidity of voters
Why does such a high percentage of votes have a problem with the very basic idea that everyone, in any society, will always pay taxes somehow?
It's like they want to keep fighting the same little battle, wah tax is oppression, wah they're taken at the point of a gun, instead of any sane discussion.
The topics worth discussing are not those, but:
- What is taxed
- How much is taxed
- How the tax money is spent
- How the taxes are determined (dictatorial decree? Parliamentary law?)
- The need for education of voters on the basics of taxation - which taxes have which effect
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
As a conservative I'm opposed to the concept of taxing property to encourage development. In fact, I don't see anything conservative about it at all, quite the opposite. We need MORE undeveloped land, not less IMO.
To this end, land should be valued at it present use (vancant lands requires little to no service as compared to developed land) and should NOT be paying much tax. The concept too often employed is valuing it at's highest and best use. This type system drives farmers off their land, pushes undeveloped land to become developed.
And to the OP, young padawan I see much learning in your future. People pay taxes on property other than real estate. In my state we pay it on our cars. People pay it on boats. In my county we pay it on our business property such as PCs and desks. Anybody ever advocating a wealth tax (as many other countries do) is advocating the extention of real estate-type property taxes to ALL things, even intangibles such as money & stocks.
Home owners need to pay the tax though, as it funds services directly for their benefit. Yes, some retirees will find that their home has increased dramtically in value, raising their taxes to unsupportable levels. But I do not believe they should receive any sort of relief not offered to all. Why should working people, raising families be called upon to subsidize others who are retired? They can sell their house for great profit and downsize, as it stands now they don't even need to pay income tax on it. I may sympathize, but I refuse to subsidize.
Fern
This is one of those times that definitions get squirrely. Those who push right-wing economic programs tend to happily push for ruthlessly demanding 'productive use'.
They call themselves 'conservative', too; so we get into the definitions, where some argue that some right-wingers have hijacked 'conservative' for greed, violence, torture, etc.
This is a reason I'd like to see 'conservatives' do better at drawing some lines, but I guess at election time, the more who will join the label and vote, the better for winning elections.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
There are plenty of services I assume you're going to say you don't use, but, in fact are essential to your way of life and your lifestyle.
That's so true. I knew a woman with two kids that got a $3500 refund when she had paid no taxes for the year in question. All thanks to the EIC.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
There was a thread on another forum not long ago asking for stories from those who actually seen the stereotypical "buying steaks with food stamps." The stories that came out boggled the mind. One member there had gone out to install satellite TV at a woman's house, and the woman asked why he was driving an old truck instead of a new one. When he explained he couldn't afford it, she seemed shocked and asked why he didn't just buy it with his government check, since everybody can afford a new car (she pointed out her own new car.) She basically went on to explain that everyone can live a comfortable lifestyle without ever working because the government will pay you, and those who work for a living are just greedy people who want more than what the government will pay for.
If those of you who are opposed to property tax saw how much it contributes towards funding our schools, police departments, fire departments, etc then you may have a change in heart. If they stop or reduce these taxes then the money to fund this stuff needs to come from somewhere. Either that or they simply cut budgets and tell them to make up for the loss which is more than likely to happen. I don't know about you guys, but I think our education system is going down hill enough these days and I most certainly do not want to reduce quality when it comes to our Police or Fire Departments.
Take Florida for example, last year there was a property tax cut which reduced everyone's monthly payments by $50 on average. Well, my county lost 70 million dollars alone when it comes to education. IIRC, the entire state's school budget was reduced by something like 4 billion dollars. Our state was already doing piss poor when it comes to our education ranking amongst the remaining states. We got a lot worse after this cut and we are estimating that next year will be worse than this year.
The quality of our educational system is not something that should be taken lightly and it is well worth paying for if you have any interest in preserving our country in the future. The people are the ones that make the difference and if our people's education sucks then you can pretty much be guaranteed that it will slowly but negatively harm all aspects of our government and society in the future. No one wants this to happen. We all want a better educational system. The question is whether or not you are willing to pay for it.
Take Florida for example, last year there was a property tax cut which reduced everyone's monthly payments by $50 on average. Well, my county lost 70 million dollars alone when it comes to education. IIRC, the entire state's school budget was reduced by something like 4 billion dollars. Our state was already doing piss poor when it comes to our education ranking amongst the remaining states. We got a lot worse after this cut and we are estimating that next year will be worse than this year.
The quality of our educational system is not something that should be taken lightly and it is well worth paying for if you have any interest in preserving our country in the future. The people are the ones that make the difference and if our people's education sucks then you can pretty much be guaranteed that it will slowly but negatively harm all aspects of our government and society in the future. No one wants this to happen. We all want a better educational system. The question is whether or not you are willing to pay for it.
So you favor socialism over feudalism. You know what, that house a 75 year old paid of 20 years ago is worth A LOT more than what he paid for it. If he can't keep up with taxes, sell the house. The $100's of thousands you make will easily pay your living expenses until the day you die.
That's quite easy to say when you're not in those shoes. Watch a family member who's lived on the same street for 80 years have to sell the house her husband built with his own bare hands 60 years ago because of taxes then sing me that tune. I have no issue with property tax when you're in the work force, but why is it so wrong to expect people who have done their part for their country and community for 50+ years to be able to live out their years in the home they built? When you raise 3 kids in a home and watch 6 grand children grow up there as well, it's not a house, it's a home and $1,000,000 can't replace that.
That's what I was thinking. That plus I don't know why anyone would choose to sell their house even if taxes were starting to become an issue. If you have been there that long and you are that old then pass it along to your children or grandchildren depending on their age. I do agree that such a house is indeed priceless. I would never sell it. I would want it to stay within the family.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Actually our modern tax rates are greater then the amount taken from farmers in feudal societies. Tax rates today range from 30-50%+, while in feudal England, the local lord would usually take something like 10-15% of the farmer's production (which was used to support the knights whom defended the local area).
The difference between feudal england and modern times is that our productivity is so high today that it only takes a small portion of our earnings to pay for basic necessities, the rest going to luxury goods.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
A house bought for $30,000 in the 1960's that was at the time an outlying suburb of a small town may now be worth $500,000+ as a city expands around it, inflating its value. If the city/state re-asses the tax value of the house, the tax payments may be completely unaffordable for a retired person living there.
Yup, no mortgage but it doesn't change the fact that R/E taxes are nearly 30% of the fixed income this person has to live on. You can think it's doable all you like, but that doesn't make it so.
If that happened to me, I would just make it available to my kids. In some sense, that might suck a little but if I cared so much about my home in the sense that NaughtyGeek described then my main concern at that age would be keeping its priceless value inside my family.
On the flip side, if my parents/grandparents were in that situation and I knew that they both wanted to live out their remaining years in the house as well as pass it on to me then I would very much consider trying to help them out financially. I figure that is the least I can do since they worked so hard to preserve it and want to help out their future generation by giving it to them. I feel they are being very generous and helping out the family is an important two way street.
Huhm, my taxes are actually broken down in what they are funding. I'd say 80% of them go to public schools. Public schools are clearly an experiment that has soundly failed. I have no problem seeing them go the way of the dinosaur. I guess that pretty much address's your post. The rest I already stated would be funded by existing sales, or increased or established income taxes. They seem modestly less tyrannical compared to property taxation. I think the Europeans handle this whole thing much better. They have high percentage taxation on property profits. For instance if a landlord makes $10,000 a year profit from a property he is taxed between 40-50%. Awesome! This prevents wealthy elitist from buying up tons of property in attempt to rent it out from here to eternity. Monarchy is prevented.
Why doesn't it compute? Not everyone finances 100% some of us put 30-50% down on our houses. Or this person could have refinanced or bought a short sale property under it's taxable value.
It's not as simple as it sounds. You need to consider how much increasing sales and income tax in order to make up the loss will effect the lives of everyone. The increase will need to be A LOT too. A ton of people are struggling enough as it is to make ends meet and you also have a lot of people who are relying on things like food stamps and such. You are going to see a lot of people move down in class if what you propose happens especially because wages will most likely not increase to balance things out. This could force more people to become involved in the ever so popular entitlement programs which means more taxes will be needed to cover that increase in government expenses. This is especially those who do not own property which are usually the ones with less money already. These people will not see an increase to their available funds because they are not paying these taxes.
Perhaps there is a better way to handle the situation, but I do not believe that increasing sales and/or income tax alone will do it.
In regards to not liking our current school system and desiring it to be reformed into something better, you also need to consider how much extra money that will cost. Where is that going to come from and is America willing to pay that money without economically destroying itself in the process? Not to mention we need to adopt a new system which we are certain will actually improve things. What is that going to be?
Are you really that brainwashed? When the government has more money to spend, it automatically means that people have less money to spend individually, because that's where government gets its money. Saying that public schools need taxes is an ideology of wanting a socialist school system where government provides a service you're forced to pay for. Education quality has dropped remarkably since this philosophy took place on the federal level with the Department of Education and now with No Child Left Behind. The real hilarious part is that you bring up food stamps, but don't seem to understand the current public school system funds the provider of the service rather than the customers. An equivalent food stamp program would be funding the grocery stores rather than the poor people who then choose from private, competing providers. One maintains free market quality, the other doesn't. Because if you don't have to convince a parent that you have a great school with great teachers in order to get the money, what happens? There's no incentive to be better than the next school, you're just another government entity entitled to other people's money based on an idealist objective.
If 80% of my property taxes are going to public schools I seriously doubt they will need to increase taxes that much to compensate for the loss. After all if I have another $4,000 a year I along with a lot of other property owners will be more inclined to go buy lots more stuff, thus more sales tax revenue. Did you forget about the added revenue from the tax assessed to lease holders?
As far as a replacement for public schools it already exist it's call private schools or home schools. I bet people would be having a lot less children if they knew they had to actually be responsible for their education, instead of just giving them extra govt checks because they have more kids.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter