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.
In most states, you still get a large property tax break for owning your home, whether you have kids or not. Michigan just happens to have one of the largest property tax breaks for homeowners (with or without kids) and perhaps the largest transfers to parents (the large tax break is dedicated entirely to schools).
In Michigan as a homeowner the annual property tax on you home would probably be $1k-$2k lower than if you did not own it.
It my area the homestead lowers my taxable value by 20% but that wasn't my question, rather where do I get to complain about the about of school taxes I pay and don't have kids? I don't it's simply part of how society works.
It my area the homestead lowers my taxable value by 20% but that wasn't my question, rather where do I get to complain about the about of school taxes I pay and don't have kids? I don't it's simply part of how society works.
I came up with a solution to this issue years ago, but like all my great ideas, it didn't exactly go viral.
We all know that many parents try to cherrypick the best school districts when buying a home.
My solution was that childless adults should pursue the opposite strategy, and cluster in the crummiest school districts, then vote to lower their school taxes even further.
I came up with this idea in the context of living in a school district with high school taxes and a majority of childless college students.
Unfortunately, as part of a later vast tax shift, local school taxes were replaced with statewide school taxes (rebated to local school districts through a formula), so there is no way Michigan voters can reduce the school tax rate on their own homes. While voters CAN reduce the locally-retained nonhomestead property tax rate, homeowners want all the nonhomestead tax rate they can get since they regard it as free money they do not pay themselves.
the tax rates already reflect that in many areas .
where my son bought a house you have 3 sister towns , easchester ,scaresdale , hartsdale .
the school systems run ,good ,better , best .
the difference in taxes and home prices are insane between the 3 . my son bought on the last block of eastchester with the next corner being scaresdale . there is a difference in home price of 200k and a difference in taxes of 7k a year . we are talking feet difference and the same post office .
The difference is how that money is generated, if you exchange your time for money, that's just high income. Now receiving a passive income generated from investments is much better and if it affords me at least a nice middle class lifestyle, that's rich.
I'd rather receive passive income generated from investments and live a middle class lifestyle rather than exchanging my time for money (the daily grind of going to work every day to make that income).
Now if I knew I was going to get a $200k yearly income guaranteed for the rest of my life without having to go to work 40+ hours a week, guaranteed I'd be rich and spending. If I make $200k a year and get a long term illness that income stops.
You're still confusing petch's preferences with the definition of a word.
I'm with you 100% that passive income is better, but petch believing how money is generated is an attribute of the definition of "rich" isn't relevant. Someone with a million bucks a month rolling in who spends it all is rich, regardless of lack of accumulation.
You're still confusing petch's preferences with the definition of a word.
I'm with you 100% that passive income is better, but petch believing how money is generated is an attribute of the definition of "rich" isn't relevant. Someone with a million bucks a month rolling in who spends it all is rich, regardless of lack of accumulation.
You define rich as high income even though with that basic definition that high income even if generated by exchanging your time for money. I define rich as accumulating wealth that provides passive income.
So obviously you bought into Obama's definition of rich even though someone can make that income for only 1 year. Ok then
You're still confusing petch's preferences with the definition of a word.
I'm with you 100% that passive income is better, but petch believing how money is generated is an attribute of the definition of "rich" isn't relevant. Someone with a million bucks a month rolling in who spends it all is rich, regardless of lack of accumulation.
I like to think of income as the amount of money someone receives on a regular basis, while wealth is the length of time that person (or family) could maintain their current lifestyle without receiving compensation for performing additional work.
“Income” and “wealth” have incorrectly become synonymous in American culture. While the two concepts often go hand in hand, using the terms interchangeably is misleading. America’s most wealthy individuals don’t necessarily draw the highest levels of income.
You're still confusing petch's preferences with the definition of a word.
I'm with you 100% that passive income is better, but petch believing how money is generated is an attribute of the definition of "rich" isn't relevant. Someone with a million bucks a month rolling in who spends it all is rich, regardless of lack of accumulation.
The amount of debt that many doctors must take on for school and training certainly tempers the perception of their high salaries. It costs a lot to get to that income level, and decades can pass before a doctor makes more money than the degree cost in the first place. Then because people think they are rich and support raising taxes on these people high income is much lower after it's said and done. This simplified illustration helps to clarify the differences between wealth (rich) and income (high income).
Yet no comments from you other than snark. Surprise, surprise.
I actually responded to you directly more than once and you failed to respond
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.
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.
