You never own your house free and clear anyway due to property taxes

[Texacon]

The Irony is thick in this one

This thread .... well, it makes my head hurt.  If the DUmmies can't see the irony in this whole thing then they are beyond hope.

There are some real gems in this one I would highly suggest you swim or boat over to take a look.

Phoebe Loosinhouse  (1000+ posts)       

Fri Jan-09-09 10:17 PM
Original message

You never own your house free and clear anyway due to property taxes
And it's not like they're just a little chunk of change in the hundreds. Oh, no, it's thousands and thousands of dollars EVERY year so that you can pretend you OWN something.

Just one more thing that has gone haywire in relation to the money people are living on. I can see the land appreciating (hopefully) but most houses should probably be considered as depreciating assets just like cars and mobile homes unless they have had significant recent updates. I think residential property should be allowed to be depreciated (aside from land value) the same way commercial property is.

Instead of PROPERTY tax, every town and city should have a RESIDENT tax on every resident over 18 years of age. Everyone should have to declare a legal residence annually and file it with a city or town and verify with some proof of residence under penalty of perjury for falsification. Lying should have sever penalties.

It's just like going back to the Doomsday Book. I think they had a better handle on things than we do.

 

madville (257 posts)     

Fri Jan-09-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #2

9. I would like to see a tax based on how many children you have in school
 Let's just say it was $1000 per child per year from the time they enter the school system until the time they graduate. You have 4 kids in public school you pay $4000, you have zero kids in school you pay $0. You home school or send them to private school you get an exemption.

Might be a good way to slow down population growth as well, hit the baby factories in the wallet. 

I don't have time for more of them now but there is some really stupid stuff in this one.

KC

[DumbAss Tanker]

Where I live, it actually is just a little chunk of change in the hundreds.   

Our property law comes from England, under English law from the time of The Conqueror, ALL the land belongs to the sovereign directly or through a subordinate hierarchy, and a freeholder owns his piece of it only subject to paying his dues to the crown or his intermediary lord every year.  In olden times that might mean supplying a certain amount from the crop or livestock (regardless of how good or bad the year was for the farmer), showing up in person to provide so many days of military or other service per year, paying a set amount of money, or any of various other duties and obligations.  These days it's just money, but the principle is pretty similar.

[Tantal]

madville (257 posts)     

Fri Jan-09-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #2

9. I would like to see a tax based on how many children you have in school
 Let's just say it was $1000 per child per year from the time they enter the school system until the time they graduate. You have 4 kids in public school you pay $4000, you have zero kids in school you pay $0. You home school or send them to private school you get an exemption.

Might be a good way to slow down population growth as well, hit the baby factories in the wallet. 

What a capitalist pig and racist thing to say! First, if this were the case, public education wouldn't be "socialized" because each parent would only be paying for services rendered, which won't go over well at the DUmp. Second, these "baby factories" are most often people of color as white birth rates are pretty-much static or declining. Capitalism and racism in one single post. I can hear the alert buttons from here.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I actually agree with this DUmmy.
End times must be near.

The unintended consequences of it would be ugly, it might work where the sole goal of education was the ability to write your own name though.  Basically such a system would concentrate wealth and (literate) population to an unprecedented degree, since the only place a teacher who hadn't taken a vow of poverty could make a living from year to year would be in a large city.  Less-populated areas would more or less be in a death spiral over generations, bringing the DUmmie vision of rural America as a massive Appalachia to fruition.  On top of everything else it would hit the families with children for the full bill at the same time they're trying to feed and clothe the rugrats.  Despite all the whining about it, there is a net positive value to public education from which everyone benefits whether they have kids or not, which would be a lot more positive if there were a way to put much of it in different hands.  The DUmmies idea is basically short-sighted, and the part it likes about 'Reducing the population' wouldn't happen either, there would just be a lot more uneducated kids being a drag on society when they grew up.   

[jukin]

I've always maintained that if parents paid anything to educate their children the quality of education and the end result would go up.  Even poor parents (that somehow seem to have the most kids in my area) should pay $30-50/ kid.  Then when little Juan comes home with all Ds the parent might just get on his and the teacher's ass to do better.

[Texacon]

This thread sure brings out some interesting thoughts for DUmp monkeys;

hack89 (1000+ posts)     

Fri Jan-09-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #9

29. That's one way to kill social security
 if you give me a choice like that, I would ditch SS in a heart beat, fund my own retirement and say a loud **** you to all those seniors that eagerly accept my tax money while turning their backs on my kids.

Oregone (1000+ posts)     

Fri Jan-09-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #2

20. Is that a joke?
 Some demographics of society should be exempt from supporting the most vital groups?

I understand that some elderly are strapped for crash. They shouldn't be living in huge residences that have a large tax burden. As for those that do, they probably can spare to support the social system. Creating some sort of senior deduction may be in order, but to eliminate it completely is short sighted. Dick Cheney should pay property taxes.

This one is one of my favorites;

Coyote_Bandit  (1000+ posts)       

Fri Jan-09-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message

10. You have a point
 Edited on Fri Jan-09-09 10:39 PM by Coyote_Bandit

It hacks me off to no end that folks who do not own property are allowed to vote to increase my property taxes. Those taxes went up about 20% last year and will do the same this year.
Meanwhile, rental rates here for a standard one bedroom apartment are pretty much the same as what they were a decade ago. Rental properties here are overbuilt so it is the owners not the tenants who are impacted by property tax increases. Renters here have no way of measuring the impact of tax increases and are not negatively impacted by increased rental rates.

I would not complain if these new tax increases were being used to fund education. But, no. The recent property tax increases here are for building a new convention center and sports stadium and for major city road repairs necessitated by years of neglect and for other long term planning projects which will benefit all residents. Some property owners here have seen their taxes increase 600% in the past year.


Edit to add: 1500 square foot house built in the mid 1950s on a quarter acre lot with a total assessed value of $100,000 = annual property taxes in excess of $1,700
 

Bitch SLAP!

Fumesucker  (1000+ posts)       

Sat Jan-10-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #10

46. Renters also pay property taxes. 
 Albeit indirectly, the landlord *will* pass on the property taxes in the form of increased rent.

Only people who really, really need the educational system personally fail to understand this.

 

KC

[Carl]

The main problem with property taxes is that they provide a blank check for local governments to not provide better services but to grow beyond any kind of rational need.

The "you will hurt safety..etc" mantra keeps officials in office by public vote of many that don`t directly pay the tax and therefore don`t see the affect.

[Traveshamockery]

In my school district in Texas, the dumb-masses have voted in two massive school bonds in three years totaling half of a billion (yes, BILLION) dollars.  We live in a city outside of Austin, Texas of approximately 70,000 people.  My husband and I both voted NO on these bonds.  The first one in November of 2006 was for $270 million and this last one in November of 2008 was $230 million.

Yes, we are paying out the nose to educate illegal immigrant children as well as pay for their breakfasts and lunches.  My son graduated from high school in this same school system and he's done okay but I don't really believe the kids in our school district are getting a great education. 

Now Obama wants to tax us again to improve schools.  I would not be surprised one iota if our school district tries to get their hands on more of those tax dollars.  In the meantime, we are having to tighten our budgets to make sure we have enough money PLUS pay the extra taxes for these schools. 

[asdf2231]

We paid a little over $3,500 for our property taxes this year and I consider it a fair investment for the schools my kids go to, the roads I drive on, the water that comes and goes through the water and sewer system to my house and, oh yeah, the people who will show up in a timely fasion to put out my house if it catches fire or show up if I am being robbed.

These idiots think that these things are handed to them free of charge.

[franksolich]

The mudville primitive is just being stupid, and knows it.

madville (257 posts)      Fri Jan-09-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #2

9. I would like to see a tax based on how many children you have in school

Let's just say it was $1000 per child per year from the time they enter the school system until the time they graduate. You have 4 kids in public school you pay $4000, you have zero kids in school you pay $0. You home school or send them to private school you get an exemption.

Might be a good way to slow down population growth as well, hit the baby factories in the wallet.

The idea behind education of the young as a collective responsibility is as old as mankind.  In fact, it's about as socialistic, or communal, as something can get.

Societies as a whole, and not just individuals, benefit from well-educated, highly-trained people within it.  Those are the ones who pay taxes so as to support members of that society weak and vulnerable.....and primitives subsisting on social services programs.

No workers, no taxes, no governmental revenue for social services programs for the young, the aged, the crippled, the ill, the primitives.

Not a penny for the subway cat.

If parents alone were to bear all the expenses of their children, then it's only those in society who have had children, who should have a right to the fruits of the labors of their children.  Anyone without children could just lay down and die, when old or ill.

That's not such a bad idea, and I'm sort of for it--like about 51% for it--but I doubt most in this time and place would be as enthusiastic about it as I am.

Even those people without children who insist that they saved up for such contingencies--illness, old age--are dependent upon other people's children.  After all, these children, once adults and working, are the fuel that makes such savings, such investments, pay off.

[MrsSmith]

The funniest thing about the DUmp's complaints over property tax is the fact that the portion of tax that goes to public schools supports the NEA and the 85% Democratic teachers.  Property taxes also support community colleges...and the 95% Democratic instructors.  I'd love to see them disconnect property taxes from the support of education...we'd have a bunch of unemployed Dims all over the country.   

[LadyLiberty]

Wow, DUmmies who are disenchanted with taxes  that pay for a social entity (public schools)  .........

I actually DO agree that if you send your kid(s) to a private school or if they are homeschooled, you should be exempt.

 Better yet, do what the private sector does and make schools compete instead of allowing them to be government run monopolies. I'd say let them be private altogether, but what has  ever gotten released from the hand of the government...

[NHSparky]

I actually agree with this DUmmy.
End times must be near.

Okay, now who pays for the fire, police, streets, garbage, etc?  We don't get to pick and choose what we spend our tax money on unless we go to our city council/state and federal reps and tell them.  If they ignore us, we vote them out of office.  That logic smacks of the idiot moonbats who refuse to pay their federal taxes because they don't agree with the military.

I may not LIKE how much we spend on schools locally, so I have a right and obligation to express that to my elected officials or vote yes or no on bond issues, etc.  Case in point--this year the town wanted to raise property taxes by $4.99 per $1000 assessed value (we were at $18.34 per $1000) to pay for bonds coming due and a whole slew of other crap.  We not only said no and fought them down to the bare bones, we also put on the ballot (and passed with like 75 percent approval) a tax/spending cap which limits the city to increase spending/taxes ONLY by the percentage of population change plus inflation per year.  The end result?  Our taxes did go up, but by less than 1/3 what they proposed, to $19.99 per $1000. 

While that may sound like a lot (actually it IS a lot), I also live in a state with no income or sales tax, so property taxes, gas taxes, tolls, and restaurant/alcohol taxes are the main ways the state makes its money.  I pay less in property taxes here than when I lived in CA, and when you consider all the other bullshit I got nailed with in CA, I'm making out like a bandit here, comparatively speaking.

[NHSparky]

The unintended consequences of it would be ugly, it might work where the sole goal of education was the ability to write your own name though.  Basically such a system would concentrate wealth and (literate) population to an unprecedented degree, since the only place a teacher who hadn't taken a vow of poverty could make a living from year to year would be in a large city.  Less-populated areas would more or less be in a death spiral over generations, bringing the DUmmie vision of rural America as a massive Appalachia to fruition.  On top of everything else it would hit the families with children for the full bill at the same time they're trying to feed and clothe the rugrats.  Despite all the whining about it, there is a net positive value to public education from which everyone benefits whether they have kids or not, which would be a lot more positive if there were a way to put much of it in different hands.  The DUmmies idea is basically short-sighted, and the part it likes about 'Reducing the population' wouldn't happen either, there would just be a lot more uneducated kids being a drag on society when they grew up.   

I agree with public education being a net positive, but ONLY if we hold these clowns to higher standards and kick the useless unions out.  Eliminate tenure.  Demand kids pass competency tests that kids MUST pass if they want to graduate.  Hold EVERYONE accountable for their failures, and reward their successes.  We've expected too little from everyone for too long.

Oh, and we're middle of the road here.  The average teacher in this state makes about $47K a year.  Our town is right around that area.  Even the smaller town teachers routinely make well over $40K, not including additional assignments such as summer teaching, etc.

[BlueStateSaint]

The mudville primitive is just being stupid, and knows it.

The idea behind education of the young as a collective responsibility is as old as mankind.  In fact, it's about as socialistic, or communal, as something can get.

Societies as a whole, and not just individuals, benefit from well-educated, highly-trained people within it.  Those are the ones who pay taxes so as to support members of that society weak and vulnerable.....and primitives subsisting on social services programs.

No workers, no taxes, no governmental revenue for social services programs for the young, the aged, the crippled, the ill, the primitives.

Not a penny for the subway cat.[/color]

If parents alone were to bear all the expenses of their children, then it's only those in society who have had children, who should have a right to the fruits of the labors of their children.  Anyone without children could just lay down and die, when old or ill.

That's not such a bad idea, and I'm sort of for it--like about 51% for it--but I doubt most in this time and place would be as enthusiastic about it as I am.

Even those people without children who insist that they saved up for such contingencies--illness, old age--are dependent upon other people's children.  After all, these children, once adults and working, are the fuel that makes such savings, such investments, pay off.

Has it shown up in that thread yet?  My cat doesn't like the subway cat, so it's unsafe to go to that thread.

[rich_t]

Many States have an income tax, as well as local/city income taxes.  Property taxes alone don't fund such items as FD/PD, roads, sewage etc.  Not to mention state sales taxes.

But all sub-issues aside, the OP was correct IMO.  You never can own your house free and clear as long as you are forced to pay perpetual "rent" aka property taxes to a government entity for the land it sits on.