U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 10-23-2010, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,966,512 times
Reputation: 32450

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Property taxes should be an equal, across the board gradated percentage of household income. The way it is now, with taxes spiraling up every year, you can see the writing on the wall.
Well, then property taxes would cease to be property taxes and would become an additional income tax, levied against those who own property but not against those who do not. This is completely nonsensical. The whole idea of property taxes is that they are based on the value of the property in question. If you own a modest property, you pay modest taxes. Conversely, if you own an expensive property, you pay more. If an elderly person is house rich and cash poor but wants to remain in that house, that is precisely the situation where a reverse mortgage makes sense.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2010, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,807 posts, read 22,133,661 times
Reputation: 9092
It amazes me how much Property taxes differ from state to state. My taxes here in Arizona have gone down each of the past 3 years and are 20% of what I would be paying in California or the east coast. I happily pay mine in one lump sum
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 08:42 AM
 
5,416 posts, read 10,375,397 times
Reputation: 4503
Back towards the topic --

Predatory "wolf pack" bankers and lawyers trying to "pick off" the weak, poor, and lame of the herd who may be straggling on the economic side of things -- now that it is Winter, so to speak.

There are some very effective ways of dealing with wolves and wolf packs.

In the real world domain, real life wolves and packs were effectively removed -- of course, until the Eco-Nuts "returned" them to parts of the West.

So doing some comparison modeling between Real Life wolves and the Economic Predators -- First understand the enemy -- For the Banker + Lawyer Predator Team -- It is ONLY about the money and ripping off the bottom-end and exploitation -- a Banker + Lawyer specialty. Destroy their money and profit and you destroy the Wolf Pack.

But working from the model of Real Life Wolves and their near extermination, there were some very effective methods of dealing with them. Some include:

Poison -- The properties these Wolf Packs claim are of no real interest to the Wolf Pack. Their goal is simply run a $1500 tax bill into $15000 worth of fees all done on borrowed and federally backed and insured depositors' money. Making money on other folks money and screwing everyone over all the way. Poisoned bait was the Wolf Pack counter-measure in this regard. The day the Banker + Lawyer team claims a "bait" property -- poison it. Turn the place into an EPA superfund level industrial waste site. Make it cost a Million or more to clean up. As the new "owners" the Wolf Pack becomes 100% economically responsible for clean up. Rather than making 10X on their borrowed money, they now face a loss of Million or more on each bait property they consume. This destroys both their capital capacity and profitability -- the Wolf Pack dies.

Counter-Hunting and Bounties. Hunting the Wolf Pack back was/is also an effective method, but bounties were introduced so that Human Hunters could make a living from it, as the Wolf Pack had little commercial value, other than some as fur. A countermeasure team of pro se and somewhat pro bono attorneys working under a non-profit umbrella (plenty of under-employed / un-employed attorneys around, right now), could run up enormous legal fees and billing against the Banker + Lawyer Wolf Packs -- again destroying their capital and profitability.

Hunting the Lone Wolf / Leaders -- Behind all these crooked schemes to screw, cheat and exploit the bottom end are individual men. Of bad character and crooked souls, but still just men and they meet their end the same as wolves. America is not there, yet . . . yet . . . but on this path, it is likely coming, but those matters are beyond the scope of a business forum.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,966,512 times
Reputation: 32450
Default More accuracy on property taxes, please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
It amazes me how much Property taxes differ from state to state. My taxes here in Arizona have gone down each of the past 3 years and are 20% of what I would be paying in California or the east coast. I happily pay mine in one lump sum
Isn't "from state to state" a misnomer? Wouldn't "from county to county" be more accurate? Aren't property taxes levied by each county and/or locality, thus resulting in enormous variations within each state? Therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about property taxes "in California". I live in California and I pay very reasonable property taxes of $2692 per year on a two-bedroom plus loft, two and a half bath townhouse with double-car garage. These taxes have been going up very slightly every year.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 09:55 AM
 
8,265 posts, read 11,243,149 times
Reputation: 4788
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Property taxes should be an equal, across the board gradated percentage of household income.
Okay let me get this straight.

Bob makes a 300k per year, but being a single guy who travels a lot on business he just keeps a one bedroom condo downtown.

The Smith family makes 75k per year, but since they have four children and own two horses they have a 5 BR house on a 4 acre property that was inherited when grandma passes away.

You're okay with Bob paying more for his property taxes annually on his 1 BR condo versus the Smith's horse property? Sounds like a good way to discourage anyone with a higher income from buying property.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 01:42 PM
 
630 posts, read 1,747,299 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Isn't "from state to state" a misnomer? Wouldn't "from county to county" be more accurate? Aren't property taxes levied by each county and/or locality, thus resulting in enormous variations within each state? Therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about property taxes "in California". I live in California and I pay very reasonable property taxes of $2692 per year on a two-bedroom plus loft, two and a half bath townhouse with double-car garage. These taxes have been going up very slightly every year.
Nothing like a responsible municipal government to keep a lid on things.Unfortunately,those tend to be few and far between.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 20,140,549 times
Reputation: 15735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Isn't "from state to state" a misnomer? Wouldn't "from county to county" be more accurate? Aren't property taxes levied by each county and/or locality, thus resulting in enormous variations within each state? Therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about property taxes "in California". I live in California and I pay very reasonable property taxes of $2692 per year on a two-bedroom plus loft, two and a half bath townhouse with double-car garage. These taxes have been going up very slightly every year.
So you and others would not understand what a 33% hike in one year means to people of any income, let alone fixed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 20,140,549 times
Reputation: 15735
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Okay let me get this straight.

Bob makes a 300k per year, but being a single guy who travels a lot on business he just keeps a one bedroom condo downtown.

The Smith family makes 75k per year, but since they have four children and own two horses they have a 5 BR house on a 4 acre property that was inherited when grandma passes away.

You're okay with Bob paying more for his property taxes annually on his 1 BR condo versus the Smith's horse property? Sounds like a good way to discourage anyone with a higher income from buying property.
Assessment for taxes would be based on property size first. So ALL 5 bedroom, 4-acre places would be in more or less the same category, give or take some for location and condition. Then, according to household income. Not just owner income. So a household in this category making $75K would pay slightly more than another household in this category making $20K. Not huge differences in taxes, just enough to enable the elderly at very low income levels to stay in their homes. Doable?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,966,512 times
Reputation: 32450
Default False assumption

Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
So you and others would not understand what a 33% hike in one year means to people of any income, let alone fixed.
Just because I have not personally experienced a 33% hike in property taxes in one year does not mean that I lack the intellectual capacity to understand what that means to other people. I find your implication to the contrary insulting. Your reaction to my post is especially odd in that the point of that post was the large local variation in property taxes, as opposed to speaking as if there were state by state levels. So your example of a huge and sudden hike actually supports my thesis that we cannot generalize by state about property taxes, since they vary enormously by locality (city or county).

If the 33% hike you are talking about was indeed a state-wide hike where you live, that rebuts my thesis, of course, and I stand corrected as far as your state is concerned. Just out of curiosity, what political jurisdiction are you referring to (county, city, town/township, or other)?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,807 posts, read 22,133,661 times
Reputation: 9092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Isn't "from state to state" a misnomer? Wouldn't "from county to county" be more accurate? Aren't property taxes levied by each county and/or locality, thus resulting in enormous variations within each state? Therefore it doesn't make sense to talk about property taxes "in California". I live in California and I pay very reasonable property taxes of $2692 per year on a two-bedroom plus loft, two and a half bath townhouse with double-car garage. These taxes have been going up very slightly every year.
Probably true, I was guaging from the Bay Area where houses went from $600,000 to $200,000 but the taxes went from $11,000 to $6,000. That same $6,000 would get you an 1100 sq ft Colonial where I used to live in PA and less in NJ. Sounds like you, like I have a good deal going
Rate this post positively 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:

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 > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top