[Unsworth]

Originally Posted by MikeBear

I never suggested NOT paying property taxes. I simply laid out that they have you over a barrel in forcing you to pay them no matter HOW high they go.

So, even if you supposedly own your house "free and clear" of any mortgage, you can only continue to live in it as long as the government allows you to rent it from them by paying those taxes.

Very true. You never really own your house. You have to pay the government in order to keep it.

[Unsworth]

Originally Posted by magellan

Property tax increases were capped by Proposal A back in the 90's. You can also appeal your assessments. You can also live in Detroit tax free. You can also claim hardship and get a break. Me personally I love paying property taxes. We have great schools, great parks and a huge trail system, responsive services. It never enters my mind that they could do a sheriff foreclosure on my house because I don't want any of those services and amenities to end, because my property value would plummet. If we're talking all John Galt ****, Ayn Rand was a fraud and a cuckoo.

The schools in Michigan are not that great.

https://www.bridgemi.com/talent-educ...ain-back-class

I know I sound negative, but a lot of government money can be wasted. Michigan has a state income tax, some local taxes and 6% state sales tax. They also tax people with pensions. Michigan also collects 60.8 cents of gas tax per gallon and vehicle registration fees increased. With all that tax you would think things would be better than they are here. (Let's don't even get started about the road conditions)

Michigan does have some great amenities as you mentioned but with all the other taxes and the heavy property tax it does get discouraging.

[Unsworth]

Originally Posted by lbj42

Let's get your facts straight. They only capped the taxable value increases to the inflation rate. There's nothing to stop new millages from being adopted. I don't have a problem with paying for the basic services and necessities. However, I live in area (Washtenaw county) where they think they need to solve all the world's problems and have had millage increases for the last 6 years straight. I'd like to stay in place when I retire, but paying $6K+ a year in property taxes on a 2100 square foot home is just too much. Go ahead and stereotype me as some worthless deplorable who should just move out of the state so you can only be around people who think just like you. I don't really care anymore.

You are not a worthless deplorable. You are just looking at reality. When your taxes keep increasing relentlessly it does not stimulate the economy. I spend less in consumer spending because of the increasing tax burden. It also makes me evaluate keeping the house I have and downsizing to help lower the property tax burden. Washtenaw County is really heavy on the property taxes. I will not consider buying a house in that county for that reason. When I research real estate in Michigan the property tax burden is a top priority.

[lbj42]

Originally Posted by Unsworth

You are not a worthless deplorable. You are just looking at reality. When your taxes keep increasing relentlessly it does not stimulate the economy. I spend less in consumer spending because of the increasing tax burden. It also makes me evaluate keeping the house I have and downsizing to help lower the property tax burden. Washtenaw County is really heavy on the property taxes. I will not consider buying a house in that county for that reason. When I research real estate in Michigan the property tax burden is a top priority.

Sorry, I was replying to the previous poster. Your post popped up before mine did. Obviously, there's huge variability in millage rates depending on where you live. I don't really feel the additional services provided justify the much higher taxes. Schools are largely funded through the state these days, and the local property taxes rates have limited impact on their funding and performance. There's very little to show that funding rates have much impact on they perform anyway (it's almost certainly largely about the students themselves, not how much money the districts spend).

[magellan]

Originally Posted by lbj42

Let's get your facts straight. They only capped the taxable value increases to the inflation rate. There's nothing to stop new millages from being adopted. I don't have a problem with paying for the basic services and necessities. However, I live in area (Washtenaw county) where they think they need to solve all the world's problems and have had millage increases for the last 6 years straight. I'd like to stay in place when I retire, but paying $6K+ a year in property taxes on a 2100 square foot home is just too much. Go ahead and stereotype me as some worthless deplorable who should just move out of the state so you can only be around people who think just like you. I don't really care anymore.

I did state that your taxes may have gone up if your millage rates were increased. See my post above the one you commented on. I didn't have any facts "not straight."

There is something to stop millage increases, it's called "democracy." Any increase in millage has to be approved by voters in your municipality.

I never called you a worthless deplorable or suggested you move out of state.

As I suggested to the OP, if you want to live somewhere where you don't have to pay your property taxes, move to the city of Detroit. 60% of property owners there do not pay their property taxes and the city and county have tried to crack down with little success. But I know your answer will be "no way" because you get what you pay for (or don't pay for).

[Zenstyle]

Unsworth writes:
I spend less in consumer spending because of the increasing tax burden.

This is a good thing. The less consumer consumption, the better, environmentally speaking.

It also makes me evaluate keeping the house I have and downsizing to help lower the property tax burden.

This is also a good thing. Most North Americans live in houses too big for their needs. (I'm not saying this is the specific case with you, Unsworth. But going smaller house-wise is better all around for the wallet, and utilities resources.)

[Unsworth]

Originally Posted by Zenstyle

Unsworth writes:
I spend less in consumer spending because of the increasing tax burden.

This is a good thing. The less consumer consumption, the better, environmentally speaking.

It also makes me evaluate keeping the house I have and downsizing to help lower the property tax burden.

This is also a good thing. Most North Americans live in houses too big for their needs. (I'm not saying this is the specific case with you, Unsworth. But going smaller house-wise is better all around for the wallet, and utilities resources.)

Your points are well taken. I am probably more frugal than most and try not to waste anything. For example, I am quite sure I put out much less garbage each week than what I see around.

I also don't live in a McMansion but you are right, just about everyone of us could live in a smaller house.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by magellan

This is pretty ludicrous. Of course they can. Otherwise no one would pay and you'd have no police fire, roads, snowplowing, schools would close, your municipality would go bankrupt. If you want to live somewhere where you don't have to pay your property taxes, try Detroit.

C'mon. You're undoubtedly smarter than that (and you mentioned it twice!). Sure, many people are unable to pay (or choose not to pay) their property taxes, but they lose their house to tax foreclosure in short order. Michigan has the quickest tax foreclosure process in the country.

Property taxes are the most unjust form of taxation because property taxes are not tied to ability to pay. My property taxes will be going up over 10% next year and that will really be a burden. It would be much more fair if property taxes were capped at a certain percentage of your income.

[Coldjensens]

I wonder how they compare the rankings. In California property taxes are based on the price you paid when you bought your house. Thus, one family who bought their house in 1962 might be paying $500 a year while the house next door who bought it in 2006 may be paying $15,000 a year for essentially the same house. Do they do an average?

I prefer sales taxes. With sales taxes, it is up to you how much tax you pay. Want to pay less tax? Buy less. Run the sales tax up to 10%, fix the roads, cut property tax = I am happy.

[Usrname]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

I wonder how they compare the rankings. In California property taxes are based on the price you paid when you bought your house. Thus, one family who bought their house in 1962 might be paying $500 a year while the house next door who bought it in 2006 may be paying $15,000 a year for essentially the same house. Do they do an average?

Yes.
'For real-estate property tax rates, we divided the “median real-estate tax payment” by the “median home price” in each state. We then used the resulting rates to obtain the dollar amount paid as real-estate tax on a house worth $184,700, the median value for a home in the U.S. as of 2016 according to the Census Bureau.'