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.
The end consumer always pays the tax, always. Just because a tax isn't itemized doesn't mean it isn't being paid. If we instituted a massive tax hike on oil companies, irrespective of profits, the end consumers would be paying the tax not the oil companies. Similarly, if we got rid of oil subsidies (an effective tax increase) the end consumers would feel it, not the oil company.
To a point that's true, but there are rental properties in my town that have been vacant for years. The owner will never get the taxes they've paid from the next person to rent the property. Real estate is different than commodities, it doesn't generally go away.
Not necessarily, equal taxation based on property values with no exemptions would result in lower taxes for all but homeowners. Businesses and renters would see a reduction.
wrong. lets say i was a home owner who had a property to rent. if my monthly payments on that property are $500 per month, and my fixed costs are another $200 per month, that means in order to have a positive cash flow i need to get a minimum of $701 per month. given that i need to pay to turn the property each time a renter leaves, i need a surplus each month to cover those costs as well, lets say that averages $300 per month. so the rent i charge has to be $!000 per month. now lets say teh government in its infinite wisdom decides to raise my property taxes by $50 per month, i have two choices;
1: i can absorb the cost
2: i can pass that cost onto the renter
if i choose option two, then my rent has to go up to $1050 per month at a minimum. if the government chooses to lower my taxes, then i can reduce the rent i charge.
wrong. lets say i was a home owner who had a property to rent. if my monthly payments on that property are $500 per month, and my fixed costs are another $200 per month, that means in order to have a positive cash flow i need to get a minimum of $701 per month. given that i need to pay to turn the property each time a renter leaves, i need a surplus each month to cover those costs as well, lets say that averages $300 per month. so the rent i charge has to be $!000 per month. now lets say teh government in its infinite wisdom decides to raise my property taxes by $50 per month, i have two choices;
1: i can absorb the cost
2: i can pass that cost onto the renter
if i choose option two, then my rent has to go up to $1050 per month at a minimum. if the government chooses to lower my taxes, then i can reduce the rent i charge.
In a roundabout way you just proved my point. If your house is a rental property you are longer eligible for the homestead exemption. Thus, your property taxes would already be at the higher level.
The mortgage payment isn't going to apply to anyone that doesn't have a mortgage, but everyone pays property taxes. Even among people that do have a mortgage the payment will vary based on your credit and down payment.
Many states have property tax relief programs which mitigate the burden faced by homeowners, especially those who are (depending on state) elderly, disabled, or veterans.
These programs rarely are available to renters or to rental property.
This can't be about fairness, since renters generally have much lower income than homeowners, and negligible net worth, so what's the rationale? Is it just a crass political payoff to high-turnout voters?
The definitive word being "property" By virtue of the fact renters rent....rather than "own" What is so hard to understand about that...seriously.
If it's about making evil landlords pay higher taxes, why not rebate those higher taxes directly to renters?
e.g. the nonhomestead tax in Michigan is a discrete tax which is easy for all to see and quantify, and thus could easily be rebated to renters.
You need ti o understand its about inevstment properties verus non investment. Same as a homeowner does not egt the same breaks i scond home imost palces.the ret tnal owners does not ans his rentals are business.
this is a catch22 situation. the states need revenue, so they raise property taxes, which means you pay a higher rent. but now you want the state to rebate the excess property tax to you, even though you technically dont pay it, but that takes revenue away from the government which means higher taxes again, which translates into higher rents. in other words your idea is foolish.
??? Simple solution, tax all dwellings at the same rate. That might mean fewer dollars for the teachers' unions. Why do many conservatives want everyone to pay the same income tax rate but not the same property tax rate?
You need ti o understand its about inevstment properties verus non investment. Same as a homeowner does not egt the same breaks i scond home imost palces.the ret tnal owners does not ans his rentals are business.
Not all landlords are 'investing', some are involuntary landlords who are renting out houses they are unable to sell. I know someone who lived in her house for decades, moved to a nearby rural area when she retired, and kept the house as a rental - not for investment or profit (the rent was way below market) but so that her children could inherit it free of taxable capital gain.
I believe all homes occupied as a primary residence should be taxed at the lower homestead rate.
My rented home is my primary residence, is it my fault I don't own it? If it's not my fault, don't tax it up the wazoo.
The definitive word being "property" By virtue of the fact renters rent....rather than "own" What is so hard to understand about that...seriously.
Then the solution is to allow the private sector (developers) to sell homes that low-wage people can afford to buy. I don't have a problem with higher taxes on voluntary renters, but why should involuntary renters bear a tax penalty for not being able to buy a home?
In a roundabout way you just proved my point. If your house is a rental property you are longer eligible for the homestead exemption. Thus, your property taxes would already be at the higher level.
And you in turn have proved my point. Why should involuntary renters - those unable to buy a home - bear a tax penalty for not being able to buy a home? Isn't that like soaking the poor?
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.
