U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2013, 04:13 AM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
15,742 posts, read 22,000,448 times
Reputation: 5277

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter View Post
Just turn on the TV and LISTEN to what each party's platform.

The Republicans want smaller government, less spending and lower taxes.
That's what I keep hearing, yet on social issues, they want maximum government involvement. Ban this. Ban that. Take this off the shelves. Restrict that.

That's not smaller government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2013, 05:51 AM
 
Location: In a house
13,258 posts, read 34,636,559 times
Reputation: 20198
John's a landlord. John owns a building on 3 acres of land, most of which are parking lots, a walking trail, a couple of dumpsters. The building itself is 4 storeys high and has 20 apartments in it; 5 on each floor, ranging from 2 studio apartments to 2 3-bedroom apartments.

The total occupiable square footage is "X."

Sue is a homeowner. She owns a building in 3 acres of land, most of which is a tennis court, a 3-car garage, a walking trail. The building itself is 3 floors high including a full finished basement, and is a single-family home.

The total occupiable square footage is the same "X" as John's apartment building.

John's tax bill is around 15% higher than Sue's tax bill.

It is not 20x Sue's tax bill.

John's building is occupied, but no one occupying it pays any property tax. None of them are *responsible* for paying any tax for the property they occupy. The bill gets sent to John. Sue's building is occupied, and Sue pays the tax. She is *responsible* for it. The bill gets sent to her.

If Amos, a tenant in John's building, lived there for two years and his lease was up and he got a rent increase, he would be free to simply move out, if he wanted to. If John experiences a tax increase, he can't walk away. If no one else rents the place by the time the tax payment is due, John still owes the money. If there is no one for him to dump the tax onto, he still owes is.

But Amos gets to live there without being *responsible* for a single dime of that tax. The bill doesn't go to him, he's not the one the Town sends the collector after if the bill isn't paid.

And yet, Amos has two kids in pubic schools, he and his wife have two cars that they drive in and around town with, they have a library card that they use regularly, they go to the town center for free events, they get to have someone plow the street their building is on when it snows, they have town police come if there's any trouble on their property, the fire department came to put a fire out on the first floor last year, etc. etc. etc.

They received all these services, without having to pay a dime in town tax.

Whether John spread his bill around to the tenants or not, is irrelevent, because Amos wasn't *responsible* for the payment. John was. Amos was entitled to live there tax free, by law. John could raise the rent to accommodate the increase in tax, but Amos was not required to send a cent into the Town tax office. Furthermore, the portion John raised the rent, to accommodate 1/20 of HIS property tax bill, was SIGNIFICANTLY less than what Amos would've had to pay, if Amos had been held responsible for a tax on the property he occupied.

In the case of a fully occupied 20-unit building, owned by an individual landlord, the town would benefit more by taxing the occupants based on the individual apartments they occupy, than they would by taxing the landlord for the building and grounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 06:08 AM
 
Location: W Hartford, CT
1,787 posts, read 3,443,722 times
Reputation: 1189
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
That's what I keep hearing, yet on social issues, they want maximum government involvement. Ban this. Ban that. Take this off the shelves. Restrict that.

That's not smaller government.
Exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 06:49 AM
 
2,710 posts, read 2,480,629 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
John's a landlord. John owns a building on 3 acres of land, most of which are parking lots, a walking trail, a couple of dumpsters. The building itself is 4 storeys high and has 20 apartments in it; 5 on each floor, ranging from 2 studio apartments to 2 3-bedroom apartments.

The total occupiable square footage is "X."

Sue is a homeowner. She owns a building in 3 acres of land, most of which is a tennis court, a 3-car garage, a walking trail. The building itself is 3 floors high including a full finished basement, and is a single-family home.

The total occupiable square footage is the same "X" as John's apartment building.

John's tax bill is around 15% higher than Sue's tax bill.

It is not 20x Sue's tax bill.

John's building is occupied, but no one occupying it pays any property tax. None of them are *responsible* for paying any tax for the property they occupy. The bill gets sent to John. Sue's building is occupied, and Sue pays the tax. She is *responsible* for it. The bill gets sent to her.

If Amos, a tenant in John's building, lived there for two years and his lease was up and he got a rent increase, he would be free to simply move out, if he wanted to. If John experiences a tax increase, he can't walk away. If no one else rents the place by the time the tax payment is due, John still owes the money. If there is no one for him to dump the tax onto, he still owes is.

But Amos gets to live there without being *responsible* for a single dime of that tax. The bill doesn't go to him, he's not the one the Town sends the collector after if the bill isn't paid.

And yet, Amos has two kids in pubic schools, he and his wife have two cars that they drive in and around town with, they have a library card that they use regularly, they go to the town center for free events, they get to have someone plow the street their building is on when it snows, they have town police come if there's any trouble on their property, the fire department came to put a fire out on the first floor last year, etc. etc. etc.

They received all these services, without having to pay a dime in town tax.

Whether John spread his bill around to the tenants or not, is irrelevent, because Amos wasn't *responsible* for the payment. John was. Amos was entitled to live there tax free, by law. John could raise the rent to accommodate the increase in tax, but Amos was not required to send a cent into the Town tax office. Furthermore, the portion John raised the rent, to accommodate 1/20 of HIS property tax bill, was SIGNIFICANTLY less than what Amos would've had to pay, if Amos had been held responsible for a tax on the property he occupied.

In the case of a fully occupied 20-unit building, owned by an individual landlord, the town would benefit more by taxing the occupants based on the individual apartments they occupy, than they would by taxing the landlord for the building and grounds.
In other words, replace property taxes with an income tax on town residents. I could get behind this, for all the reasons AnonChick mentioned, but the devil is in the details (as always).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 06:56 AM
 
2,890 posts, read 2,964,357 times
Reputation: 1419
Anon may be on to something. Great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 08:35 AM
 
240 posts, read 431,600 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
John's a landlord. John owns a building on 3 acres of land, most of which are parking lots, a walking trail, a couple of dumpsters. The building itself is 4 storeys high and has 20 apartments in it; 5 on each floor, ranging from 2 studio apartments to 2 3-bedroom apartments.

The total occupiable square footage is "X."

Sue is a homeowner. She owns a building in 3 acres of land, most of which is a tennis court, a 3-car garage, a walking trail. The building itself is 3 floors high including a full finished basement, and is a single-family home.

The total occupiable square footage is the same "X" as John's apartment building.

John's tax bill is around 15% higher than Sue's tax bill.

It is not 20x Sue's tax bill.

John's building is occupied, but no one occupying it pays any property tax. None of them are *responsible* for paying any tax for the property they occupy. The bill gets sent to John. Sue's building is occupied, and Sue pays the tax. She is *responsible* for it. The bill gets sent to her.

If Amos, a tenant in John's building, lived there for two years and his lease was up and he got a rent increase, he would be free to simply move out, if he wanted to. If John experiences a tax increase, he can't walk away. If no one else rents the place by the time the tax payment is due, John still owes the money. If there is no one for him to dump the tax onto, he still owes is.

But Amos gets to live there without being *responsible* for a single dime of that tax. The bill doesn't go to him, he's not the one the Town sends the collector after if the bill isn't paid.

And yet, Amos has two kids in pubic schools, he and his wife have two cars that they drive in and around town with, they have a library card that they use regularly, they go to the town center for free events, they get to have someone plow the street their building is on when it snows, they have town police come if there's any trouble on their property, the fire department came to put a fire out on the first floor last year, etc. etc. etc.

They received all these services, without having to pay a dime in town tax.

Whether John spread his bill around to the tenants or not, is irrelevent, because Amos wasn't *responsible* for the payment. John was. Amos was entitled to live there tax free, by law. John could raise the rent to accommodate the increase in tax, but Amos was not required to send a cent into the Town tax office. Furthermore, the portion John raised the rent, to accommodate 1/20 of HIS property tax bill, was SIGNIFICANTLY less than what Amos would've had to pay, if Amos had been held responsible for a tax on the property he occupied.

In the case of a fully occupied 20-unit building, owned by an individual landlord, the town would benefit more by taxing the occupants based on the individual apartments they occupy, than they would by taxing the landlord for the building and grounds.
What about Bill who lives in a 2 bedroom 1200 square foot house and pays the lowest tax bill in town. He has 3 kids crammed in there and they use the schools, parks, libraries, roads etc.
Then there is Joe in a 4 bedroom 3500 square foot house. He has no kids because they are grown up and moved away. He doesn't use the schools, parks or libraries in town. However, he pays 3X as much property tax as Bill.

The bottom line is that property taxes are going to be based on property values. The renter does not own any property, thus there is no property tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 08:41 AM
 
2,890 posts, read 2,964,357 times
Reputation: 1419
There is property tax GTMO--- just the landlord/building owner pays and the tax is set artificially low. This is mostly the result of a unwritten social contract with landlords. If the tax was equalized with homeowners it is likely the higher prices would deter tenants and may result in blight or abandonment. It would also be a burden for landlords since larger units are rarely fully occupied. There needs to be a better system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 10:38 AM
 
673 posts, read 1,233,337 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtmo View Post
What about Bill who lives in a 2 bedroom 1200 square foot house and pays the lowest tax bill in town. He has 3 kids crammed in there and they use the schools, parks, libraries, roads etc.
Then there is Joe in a 4 bedroom 3500 square foot house. He has no kids because they are grown up and moved away. He doesn't use the schools, parks or libraries in town. However, he pays 3X as much property tax as Bill.

The bottom line is that property taxes are going to be based on property values. The renter does not own any property, thus there is no property tax.
This has been going on for the last kazillion years and everybody knows it. The tax system was not designed to be "fair", but designed to be progressive so the less financially well off are taken care of to prevent riots and also ensuring their offspring has a fair shot in life.

If they want to increase the "fairness" they can simply fund schools with flat school fees per person like what Asia do. That will only widen the wealth gap and create other social problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 04:13 PM
 
8,780 posts, read 16,248,821 times
Reputation: 5219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
Anon may be on to something. Great post.
No, she isn't, IMHO.

Because if we are going to follow that logic, well then, we'll have to charge this couple in their SFH more than the single person next door living in a SFH. And the couple with a child that lives in their SFH between those other 2 SFH will have to be charged more than the childless couple. And the family with......yada..yada......yada.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 08:23 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,258 posts, read 34,636,559 times
Reputation: 20198
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtmo View Post
What about Bill who lives in a 2 bedroom 1200 square foot house and pays the lowest tax bill in town. He has 3 kids crammed in there and they use the schools, parks, libraries, roads etc.
Then there is Joe in a 4 bedroom 3500 square foot house. He has no kids because they are grown up and moved away. He doesn't use the schools, parks or libraries in town. However, he pays 3X as much property tax as Bill.

The bottom line is that property taxes are going to be based on property values. The renter does not own any property, thus there is no property tax.
Then, like I said, don't call it a property tax. Call it an occupancy fee. The point is, the primary occupant of that rental unit is responsible for paying the amount. NOT the owner of the building. The owner of the building still pays a property tax, because he owns the property. And if he lives in one of those units, maybe he can get a tax break on that, and not have to pay occupancy AND property for the same address. But all tenants - would pay a fee to the state.

This isn't to replace property taxes. It is in conjunction with property taxes, to replace the car tax, which is being eliminated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top