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.
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.
DING! DING! DING! DING! we have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINALLY you said the magic words I've been waiting for...
"Helping elderly stay in their homes..."
So...is it not appropriate to help elderly renters stay in their homes by extending the same property tax deferral on their homes?
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?
A conservative would think that property taxes, beyond the point of sale, are wrong period.
Your property tax is your rent, and the landlord will evict if you don't pay it.
No one "owns" land in this country anymore, and that makes a conservative like myself, very upset.
So...is it not appropriate to help elderly renters stay in their homes by extending the same property tax deferral on their homes?
I say no, the only reason I was on board is because the state/locality can get the tax money at the point of sale or inheritance. With renters they are not directly paying property tax and to give them the same break would be another social program that would have to be funded.
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?
Well, we run into a problem here.
In this case you're talking about the money being transferred between two private individuals according to the rental contract.
No, I don't want the government inserting itself into the rental agreement and dictating terms.
But that doesn't mean you can't work something out -- I suppose what I'd do in this case is make rent tax deductible and/or give a tax credit for qualifying individuals.
So you are again aiding people by letting them keep more of their own money, the landlord still gets his rent per the rental agreement, and the government is taxing & spending less money which keeps federal over-reaching and inefficiency down.
The problem of course is how to recover it later per the "deferred" part of the whole deal. Not sure about that but then I'm not a tax lawyer.
I say no, the only reason I was on board is because the state/locality can get the tax money at the point of sale or inheritance. With renters they are not directly paying property tax and to give them the same break would be another social program that would have to be funded.
So you're saying homeowners shouldn't be taxed out of their homes but renters are fair game?
In this case you're talking about the money being transferred between two private individuals according to the rental contract.
No, I don't want the government inserting itself into the rental agreement and dictating terms.
But that doesn't mean you can't work something out -- I suppose what I'd do in this case is make rent tax deductible and/or give a tax credit for qualifying individuals.
So you are again aiding people by letting them keep more of their own money, the landlord still gets his rent per the rental agreement, and the government is taxing & spending less money which keeps federal over-reaching and inefficiency down.
The problem of course is how to recover it later per the "deferred" part of the whole deal. Not sure about that but then I'm not a tax lawyer.
Okay, you seem to be thinking along lines simuimar to mine...
I'm not suggesting that government should insert itself into the rental agreement, only that there should be some mechanism for either the landlord or the renter to enjoy the benefit of deferral.
So you're saying homeowners shouldn't be taxed out of their homes but renters are fair game?
Yes, as I stated the renter is not directly paying property tax and what interest would the property owner have by agreeing to a referal of taxes on a elderly or disabled person? At the end when the owner dies or sells that tax would have to be payed. Plus if renters do not like the agreement of their lease they can always shop for cheaper rent.
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?
It's a local issue, so whatever the local government says is fine. If the people in a town want to give all residents who are 65 and older, a pass on property taxes, that is their option.
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.
You are right of course. Which is why I intend to buy property that is not taxed.
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.
