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.
Well, your post was a bash conservatives post and was posted before the bash Obama post, so you really don't have any room to complain. You started it.
My post stated a fact in response to the OP. The right winger used typical childish thread hijacking and "blame Obama" trash.
"you started it" what is this, 3rd grade? Grow up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
As a conservative, property taxes of any kind are violation of individual liberty. Can you with a straight face claim a person is the sovereign owner of their property if they must pay property taxes? Does that not defeat the entire purpose of ownership? Can one keep their property and refuse to pay property tax? Can they even claim they own their own property when they pay property tax?
A person who pays property tax and claims they own the property is the same type of idiot who buys a car on a loan and claims they own the car.
I agree, but that's the thing with america you don't truly own anything. The government can take away your car, house, belongings, you,..We basically live in a somewhat false sense of freedom.
Well, your post was a bash conservatives post and was posted before the bash Obama post, so you really don't have any room to complain. You started it.
They're either insane or paid to post that way. No way someone can be so volatile, partisan and completely out of touch with reality.
As a conservative, property taxes of any kind are violation of individual liberty. Can you with a straight face claim a person is the sovereign owner of their property if they must pay property taxes? Does that not defeat the entire purpose of ownership? Can one keep their property and refuse to pay property tax? Can they even claim they own their own property when they pay property tax?
A person who pays property tax and claims they own the property is the same type of idiot who buys a car on a loan and claims they own the car.
I agree with every point that you posted, so consider that my answer above was in the present framework of our taxing system. In reality the present system of taxing property is here to stay.
On the radio I heard a talk show host say that allowing some people (in this case, elderly and disabled homeowners) to defer property taxes (as long as they stay in the home, i.e. until they move, sell, or die) is an idea that any conservative can support. (The taxes would be paid, with interest, when the house is sold or inherited.)
What is the conservative basis of supporting it, or at least, why do or should conservatives support it?
As a conservative I can get behind this.
I'm good with taxing people less so they can spend their money on supporting themselves instead of sending it to the government and having them distribute it back out as entitlements.
1. The money stays in the private sector the entire time, which is more efficient.
2. The choice of what to do with it is made by the individual who earned with it, increasing personal responsibility and freedom.
3. No government handouts are involved, so less fraud, corruption, favortism, and dependency.
I am conservative and think this is a compassionate position to take to give a break to the elderly and disabled. These people struggle with health issues and medication needs. It does not cost the state/locality nothing since they will collect all due taxes upon the sale or inheritance. If it was on the ballot in my state/locality I would vote yes.
You are (FINALLY!) the first person to answer the question in the general way I had hoped and expected. I'm looking for a specific idea (which I've often seen in similar contexts) and will expand on this later.
I agree, but that's the thing with america you don't truly own anything. The government can take away your car, house, belongings, you,..We basically live in a somewhat false sense of freedom.
Not according to the constitution unless specifically clarified under such specific circumstances.
Property taxes are not authorized by the Constitution and the entire concept of being a sovereign owner of such is reaffirmed by the basic principals of our rights as free individuals.
That is, there is no justifiable means to support property tax other than the lethargic nature of the people who allow it.
You are correct though, we live in a "false sense" of freedom, but not by its original design, but by the theft of those who have taken away such rights through government infringement over time.
I agree with every point that you posted, so consider that my answer above was in the present framework of our taxing system. In reality the present system of taxing property is here to stay.
I know what you meant, and as being "here to stay" is simply the slavery we have chosen to accept. We can not complain about any infringement when we allow such, as it is a pointless venture of semantics. We are slaves, we have chosen to be such, and we are deserving of such as long as we allow it to be. We are a victim of the expectations of a "civil society" to which uses such requirements of "civility" to restrain us from properly objecting to any infringement we receive.
By any logical and just response, those who infringe of such should be hung for their offense, yet see if you can find anyone to agree to defend against such infringement by such means. Because they refuse to defend against, they are also guilty of the infringement itself.
It is why I really don't care about politics much anymore. I don't care who wins, who is in control and who espouses what ideology. They are all guilty of the same and will continue to infringe for their own benefits. We are like rats in a maze all chasing the special prize dangled before us, but never realizing we are simply fodder for the trash once they have reached their use for us.
On the radio I heard a talk show host say that allowing some people (in this case, elderly and disabled homeowners) to defer property taxes (as long as they stay in the home, i.e. until they move, sell, or die) is an idea that any conservative can support. (The taxes would be paid, with interest, when the house is sold or inherited.)
What is the conservative basis of supporting it, or at least, why do or should conservatives support it?
I don't know that this is a "conservative" vs. "liberal" question rather one of common sense.
Helping elderly stay in their homes longer decreases Medicare/Medicaid payments to nursing homes, thus helps decrease costs of these entitlement programs.
So, those who want to decrease the costs of certain programs and simultaneously lengthen the probability of their longevity, might be in favor of such local property tax law variances.
The elderly (and vets) get a tax break in just about every taxing entity in the country. It's usually tiered to age, disability, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is the idea of collecting the taxes down the line at the sale via them (or their heirs).
Even worse is the increased tax burden the loss would put on the public and the loss in revenue to the community.
Here's another question. My old house lost it's equity when the RE bubble burst and cannot be sold at any price due to the dead market - even though it's paid off. The taxes increased through the years but have NOT retreated to the levels before it was revalued by the county. I still have to pay the high taxes on a house that has tax value nearly four times it's current selling value. I'm not a flipper or speculator, just an average homeowner.
So, where's MY break?
You rarely see taxing authorities lowering taxable values. But if it does happen, the rate is adjusted to keep the dollars paid in at about the same range.
I'm good with taxing people less so they can spend their money on supporting themselves instead of sending it to the government and having them distribute it back out as entitlements.
1. The money stays in the private sector the entire time, which is more efficient.
2. The choice of what to do with it is made by the individual who earned with it, increasing personal responsibility and freedom.
3. No government handouts are involved, so less fraud, corruption, favortism, and dependency.
And THANK YOU for another on-target reply!
Now I'd like to add a twist with which conservatives generally DO NOT agree, and I'm trying to figure out why. (So help me out here...)
If a rental property is rented to an elderly or disabled person, should the deferral be available?
Faced with a property tax increase, the landlord must either increase the rent (pass on the tax increase) or absorb ("eat") the tax increase himself.
Clearly, no right-thinking conservative would suggest that a landlord absorb the tax increase, therefore he must pass it on to hiw elderly or disabled renter.
Which means that elderly or disabled homeowners should get the benefits you list above, while elderly or disabled renters should not.
In 90% of cases, an elderly or disabled homeowner will be in a better financial position (usually much better) than an elderly or disabled renter.
So how does it make sense to give homeowners a break and suimilarly-situated renters not the same break?
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.
Grow up.
