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.
unfourtunetly land has been taxed since the beginning of time and always will... as far as i think , income shouldnt be taxed when earned we should just have a vat tax when spent and everyone is equal in tax paid with no loop holes. the more you spend the more you pay but we are all at the same rate
think about the sales tax we pay. we already paid tax on the money, now its taxed again and that dollar i just got taxed on that i spent is taxed again when you spend it.... and again and again as others spend the same dollar....
how things should be never play out ... my biggest grip is bridge tolls on bridges that are paid for where the revenue goes into the general tax fund like here in new york. its really an unfair extra tax based on the fact that you have to travel from one particular area to another, while others that dont go to that area arent taxed..... if your throwing the toll revenue into the general slush fund then tax everyone not just a select few because of geography. if the toll money is subsidizing the mass transit system then its an unfair tax .if its paying for the road ,bridge or tunnel then its another story
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-16-2008 at 05:51 AM..
problems with income based is there are to many variables.
why should my 200,000 1/2 acre home pay the same tax as my neighbor who has a million dollar home on 50 acres just because i earn more. he took up as many as 20 potential home sites that otherwise would have payed real estate taxes.
why should i pay taxes on 100,000 in income on my little house when my neighbor shielded and defered his income and reduced his 150,000 income to 100,000 thru keogh or 401k contributions and has his medical insurance pretax and has 50 acres and a bigger house,
why would a retire who had a company 401k and now has mandatory distributions from the 401k which cause his social security to become taxible pay more than the same retire on social security who had roths with no mandatory distributions and the same after tax income.
as you can see having one income based plan already in place leaves to much in variables for a 2nd plan thats based on property owned in an area...
why stop there, maybe they should remove all fuel taxes and we all pay a flat fuel tax at the end of the year based on income, even if you dont own a car because taxis and mass transit are your transportation
i guess the reason property taxes are based on value of the home is there is no other fair way to it, not that any tax is ever fair.
we already have a tax system thats in place that charges based on your income and we pay state and local taxes on that. we have real estae taxes not to tax you again on income but to tax just your property you occupy based on its own value seperate from yours
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-16-2008 at 06:03 AM..
why should my 200,000 1/2 acre home pay the same tax as my neighbor who has a million dollar home on 50 acres just because i earn more.
It shouldn't. Your home doesn't pay taxes, you do. I'm talking about a system that is not related to the value of yourhome, and you're basing arguments that are linked to the value of the home. The value of your primary residence has nothing to do with how much you can afford to pay in taxes. You earn more, you should pay more, because you have the ability to based upon your higher income. Your example is an extreme, and far less likely than your neighbor having the same size home as you, and a much lower income due to their age and ability to work or even find work. In that scenario, should you pay the same tax?
he took up as many as 20 potential home sites that otherwise would have payed real estate taxes.
But those 20 houses aren't there, so there aren't 20 families consuming gov't services such as education, or contribuiting to traffic congestion and hastening the need for wider roads and or more frequent road repairs. Less demand, so less need for $ to provide. Thus, irrelevant that he owns land.
why would a retire who had a company 401k and now has mandatory distributions from the 401k which cause his social security to become taxible pay more than the same retire on social security who had roths with no mandatory distributions and the same after tax income.
Because the guy with the Roth already paid taxes on that income, and the guy with the 401k didn't
we already have a tax system thats in place that charges based on your income and we pay state and local taxes on that.
Most local taxes are funded by real estate taxes. Your PA property tax has a county and shool district component. we have real estae taxes not to tax you again on income but to tax just your property you occupy based on its own value seperate from yours
I know what we have, and its wrong. I'm not talking about comparatively fair or unfair from one homeowner to the next. Any system that can potentially force any person out of their home due to inability to pay taxes on its value, irrelevant of their income or other assets, is WRONG. VAT tax at time of purchase is based upon ability to pay at time of purchase. You know if you can afford it, if you can't you don't buy the item. At time of purchase, you have no way of knowing if you'll be able to afford the property tax 20 years from then, and if you can't...you must sell your house, and be uprooted. Property tax on assets other than the primary residence, still onerous, but still linked to ability to pay without causing uprooting. Perhaps a waiver of property tax based on minimum income, but that just invites a whole deepening of the incredibly convoluted tax system and searcing for loopholes and more legislation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc......
Property tax on a person's primary residence is WRONG.
Look at what is going on right now with this gov't bailout. Stabilizing the housing industry by stemming the rate of foreclosures has been deemd crucial. Well, if this recession turns into a depression, there will be more foreclosures, and part of the reason in states like PA will be the real estate tax component of the mortgage payment. For example, on a $1200 monthly mortgae, $400 is for tax. In an economic downturn, maybe a families income is reduced to the point where they can't pay $1200, but could pay $800. They're still earning, paying income tax, sales tax, but they must give up their primary residence due to inability to pay a tx bsed on its value, not linked to their abaility to pay? It's WRONG.
real property and corporations are real living breathing entitys unto themselves. they are taxed on their own merits and values . not the owners ,shareholders or partners income.. real property are governed seperatly and under different laws because they have to be. they can be owned by other entities other than directly held by you. to many variables in owners circumstances. you can even own your house inside a trust in which case YOU are not taxed the trust has its own taxes due. its like giving your house to uncle charlie but you can live there and reap benefits when sold as well provide money for bills. you pay them maybe your attorney pays them on your behalf but its still not something you own diectly
when you buy a car your taxed on the value of the car, not your income.
when you die inheiratence taxes and estate taxes tax the real property values, not who the owners may have been.
and while yes the roth owner paid taxes up front the fact that his property taxes should be reduced later on because the 401k owner may have his social security taxed wouldnt be fair only the income should be taxed.
in fact last year i had extremely high medical bills that werent covered. the fact was my deduction was high enough to trip the amt tax .. soooo not only was i stuck with a higher tax bill and huge medical bills but under an income based system my real estate taxes would be higher.
the reality is someone taxed out of their home is no different than an evicted tenant who cant afford the rent or having your power turned off because you cant pay the bill or afford groceries.
i can see programs offering assistance for certain income levels but real property should be taxed on its own value.. the entire tax code is based on it
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-16-2008 at 09:27 AM..
why should my 200,000 1/2 acre home pay the same tax as my neighbor who has a million dollar home on 50 acres just because i earn more.
It shouldn't. Your home doesn't pay taxes, you do. I'm talking about a system that is not related to the value of yourhome, and you're basing arguments that are linked to the value of the home. The value of your primary residence has nothing to do with how much you can afford to pay in taxes. You earn more, you should pay more, because you have the ability to based upon your higher income. Your example is an extreme, and far less likely than your neighbor having the same size home as you, and a much lower income due to their age and ability to work or even find work. In that scenario, should you pay the same tax?
he took up as many as 20 potential home sites that otherwise would have payed real estate taxes.
But those 20 houses aren't there, so there aren't 20 families consuming gov't services such as education, or contribuiting to traffic congestion and hastening the need for wider roads and or more frequent road repairs. Less demand, so less need for $ to provide. Thus, irrelevant that he owns land.
why would a retire who had a company 401k and now has mandatory distributions from the 401k which cause his social security to become taxible pay more than the same retire on social security who had roths with no mandatory distributions and the same after tax income.
Because the guy with the Roth already paid taxes on that income, and the guy with the 401k didn't
we already have a tax system thats in place that charges based on your income and we pay state and local taxes on that.
Most local taxes are funded by real estate taxes. Your PA property tax has a county and shool district component. we have real estae taxes not to tax you again on income but to tax just your property you occupy based on its own value seperate from yours
I know what we have, and its wrong. I'm not talking about comparatively fair or unfair from one homeowner to the next. Any system that can potentially force any person out of their home due to inability to pay taxes on its value, irrelevant of their income or other assets, is WRONG. VAT tax at time of purchase is based upon ability to pay at time of purchase. You know if you can afford it, if you can't you don't buy the item. At time of purchase, you have no way of knowing if you'll be able to afford the property tax 20 years from then, and if you can't...you must sell your house, and be uprooted. Property tax on assets other than the primary residence, still onerous, but still linked to ability to pay without causing uprooting. Perhaps a waiver of property tax based on minimum income, but that just invites a whole deepening of the incredibly convoluted tax system and searcing for loopholes and more legislation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc......
Property tax on a person's primary residence is WRONG.
Look at what is going on right now with this gov't bailout. Stabilizing the housing industry by stemming the rate of foreclosures has been deemd crucial. Well, if this recession turns into a depression, there will be more foreclosures, and part of the reason in states like PA will be the real estate tax component of the mortgage payment. For example, on a $1200 monthly mortgae, $400 is for tax. In an economic downturn, maybe a families income is reduced to the point where they can't pay $1200, but could pay $800. They're still earning, paying income tax, sales tax, but they must give up their primary residence due to inability to pay a tx bsed on its value, not linked to their abaility to pay? It's WRONG.
saying their isnt anyone living on those 20 spots my neighbor owned is like saying you deserve all the seats on a plane because they arent sold.....
there is no one living there or may ever live there because somweone owns them, hense you pay more...... nothing wrong with that logic
again if you took the seats out of the plane and said you dont need those seats to sell because if you dont sell them there is less weight in the plane and less fuel used. by owning the lots you took away all future earning potential of those lots as tax revenue for the town... you generally pay more than you consume
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-16-2008 at 09:01 AM..
bottom line answer really is leave things as they are but offer certain income ranges assistance or tax credits on various goods and services not just homeowners or those that are defaulting. .like the food stamp program but extend it out a little to utilities and tax credits where needed
At a recent executive PTA mtg we were discussing our new school and the fears people are having about taxes going up. Our Principal told us that our taxes actually went down this year. But I don't expect it to be a trend. Unfortunately the more people moving in to our area the higher the taxes will go. More education costs and maintainence on roads will only cause increases. Sorry....
saying their isnt anyone living on those 20 spots my neighbor owned is like saying you deserve all the seats on a plane because they arent sold..... No, your neighbor is not consuming more or driving the cost of anything up by simply owning the big lot. Me saying that I should be allowed to use the seats I didn't pay for (and presumably occupying them with friends and relatives) would consume resources of the airline in higher administrative and fuel costs, and thus should be paid for.
real property and corporations are real living breathing entitys unto themselves.
The home you live in does not breathe, and it doesn't have any money to pay taxes.
You are so caught up in "the way things are", that you can't see the fundamental flaw, which has been exascerbated over the years with ever deepening and more convoluted tax law, allowances, loopholes, waivers, etc. Most of the "what ifs" you cite are based on paying people to find the loopholes in those laws, loopholes which were either never intended or eventually legislated in to address unintended or unforeseen conditions created by existing tax law.
The fundamental flaw is that your ability to own and reside in your primary residence should not hinge upon your ability to pay for government services. The reason it does, is that these systems began hundreds of years ago, with the rich owning land and creating their own systems of extracting wealth from those they allowed to use the land, enforced by using private armies to force people of their land if they did not pay.
The millions and millions of lines of tax code be damned, it is fundamentally wrong to tell someone "Now that you do not have the ability to pay for government services, you do not have the right to keep the home which you have bought and paid for."
the reality is someone taxed out of their home is no different than an evicted tenant who cant afford the rent or having your power turned off because you cant pay the bill or afford groceries.
It absolutely is not. Occupying a property owned by someone else is consuming, and compensation commensurate with the value of occupancy is due the owner. Using electricity is consuming, and compensation commensurate with the value of the power is due the producer and deliverer of the power. Eating food that someone else produced is consuming, and compensation commensurate with the value of that delivered food is due the producer and deliverer.
Purchasing a home is consuming, and compensation is due the previous owner. Taxes pay for government services. Simply owning a home is not consuming any service from the government.
Take your head out of the system, and the tax code, and the way things are, and the loopholes that might hurt or benefit one particular person in thier own unique circumstance, and consider the basic tenet. The grocer doesn't ask you how much your house is worth in figuring the value of your groceries, neither does the power utility, or the airline. Only the local government and school district bases the value of what it provides on the worth of your home. It is an unfair, antiquated system with its basis the age of feudalism, and many states have done away with it. PA should, too.
good luck changing it my friend, and while your at it working on miracles can you get nyc to loosen up their gun controls a little too.... we just heard our permits may not be valid outside of city limits except when hunting
Last edited by mathjak107; 11-16-2008 at 01:08 PM..
You've now gone from saying it is right and need not change to saying it would be hard to change. Do you still think it is right? The first step toward change is feeling that change is needed.
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.
