So the "assesments" take on renters then?! (Pittsburgh: houses, safe neighborhoods)

[robrobrob]

Why are we assuming the landlord paid too much for the house?

Taxes are an expense, all expenses are taken into account when a landlord sets the monthly rent.


If you don't want to pay Mt. Lebanon prices then you can move to Brentwood, for example. Or you can actually curtail your spending, save money for a down payment and buy your own house.

[ML North]

Algia,

Property taxes fund schools, infrastructure, and municipal services, all of which are for the benefit of renters and homeowners alike. The idea that renters should enjoy those services free of cost simply by virtue of the fact that they do not own property and without any consideration of their individual means is terribly misguided. If that were the case, who would ever buy a home?

At the end of the day, landlords purchase properties to rent out with the expectation that their efforts will be rewarded by receiving rents in excess of their costs, including capital costs and taxes. So if you're expecting landlords to forego their primary incentive to offer rental properties (profits) because they have some obligation to shield renters from property taxes (which is a false premise anyway -- see the previous paragraph) then the option to rent and its associated benefits (which DO NOT necessarily include escaping the cost of property taxes) would simply disappear.

Owning property, in and of itself, carries neither a moral obligation nor an economic incentive to pay for renters' children to go to school, for the police to protect their safety, or for their use of public roads. Expecting otherwise is totally unrealistic.

[raynist]

I am convinced this has to be a joke.

No one could possibly think this way.

[algia]

That's true. Its just for those who love to take advantage of others!

Originally Posted by mckeesport_alum

Capitalism, it's not for everyone.

[Kippy]

Originally Posted by algia

That's true. Its just for those who love to take advantage of others!

Such as......................................yourself?

People have repeatedly explained that the taxes pay for the various amenities provided to you and your family by the municipality in which you live. Therefore, doesn't it make sense you should shoulder the burden for the bill?

[mckeesport_alum]

Real estate is more complicated than simple retail purchases, but the process of buying/leasing a space and purchasing simple retail goods are similar. The more experience, research, and general knowledge one has of a certain product, the easier it will be to make an informed decision.

If you don't have enough knowledge on the product or don't have time to make an informed purchase, you can hire someone that does. In the case of real estate, request the services of a real estate agent. Many will help with not only with buying but also renting. They have a vested interest in making sure you get a fair deal, because they don't want to tarnish their name.

If you don't make an informed decision, you deserve to be "ripped off / gouged". Finally, in most markets/industries, the owner/seller's cost is not relevant to market price. Many people try and sell their homes based on what they paid or invested in it, and they sit on it for years. Why? Their investment is totally *irrelevant* to the value of the property. It will sell for the market price. The market (buyer and seller) determines market price, not one individual or circumstance.

[algia]

No. If I'd buy a house, I wouldn't offer "full asking price" just because. An Investor never does that. Show me one that forks over $200k "just because" the sellers is asking for it! Homeowners also refinance to lower their payments.

RE is negotiable.

You won't get me to agree that is "OK" to pass the cost of property taxes onto the renters. I stand by my original opinion. It is not my taxes...when I'll own a house, I'll pay my own taxes. Not my house, not my taxes.

Originally Posted by Kippy

Such as......................................yourself?
People have repeatedly explained that the taxes pay for the various amenities provided to you and your family by the municipality in which you live. Therefore, doesn't it make sense you should shoulder the burden for the bill?

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by algia

No. If I'd buy a house, I wouldn't offer "full asking price" just because. An Investor never does that. Show me one that forks over $200k "just because" the sellers is asking for it! Homeowners also refinance to lower their payments.

RE is negotiable.

You won't get me to agree that is "OK" to pass the cost of property taxes onto the renters. I stand by my original opinion. It is not my taxes...when I'll own a house, I'll pay my own taxes. Not my house, not my taxes.

So in your world view, why does one even have to pay rent? It's not your house after all.

[RyanR]

algia,

Can you tell me any company whose clients or customers don't pay their tax? Taxes are built into the companies costs. Those costs are passed onto the customer. If their costs (e.g. taxes) go up, it's passed on to the customer.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by raynist

I am convinced this has to be a joke.

No one could possibly think this way.

After reading the latest post by OP I tend to agree with you.

If it's genuine, then I resent someone with such an attitude having $1450 a month to drop on rent in the first place! Passing on property costs to the renter is about as noncontroversial as it gets without being a communist or something, and harping about paying such costs by someone who otherwise seems to benefit from capitalism is a bit hard to swallow.