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.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,823 times
Reputation: 2677
Advertisements
Anything that helps our elderly stay in their homes is a good thing... I would only have two fears about the program though...
1. Since school funding is the biggest part of (at least our) property tax bills, I would hope that the school system could still be maintained.
2. Local infastructure, police, fire, etc. must still be maintained, and the county would need to make sure its house was in order otherwise the multiplier would be raised astronomically for all. We lost value on our home, yet our multiplier went through the roof this year, so our taxes went up proportionately.. The county would need to know, it was going to get that money, but at a later date, so when it set the multiplier for that year, they would need to take that into consideration...
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.
That is some rebuke and admit that is the worst verbal A$$ beating I have took on CD but one that I can appreciate. For my lame response I ask what can a nobody like me {slave} do to change this gross infringement? How successful do you think I would be asking my neighbors to abolish the property tax? The first thing they would say " how about the children and their education? "where are we going to get the money to pay for that'?
Or how about a one man protest? I refuse to pay my property tax and the lender would eventually take action. Or the state would take action and garnish my wages. One way or the other? I lose my house or the state collects their money. That out come sounds like a losing battle that no matter how hard I tried I could not change the outcome.
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.
Property taxes are also not universal. There are places where you can buy property and not be taxed. If you are a "slave" or a "victim" it is because you chose to be one. I prefer to make a different choice.
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.
Dude, you are way beyond conservative. I am one you would classify as an "idiot" since I claim to own property and I pay property taxes.
A variety of governmental entities, ALL ELECTED, levy taxes against property. The budget hearings are open forums where any citizen may comment or propose changes. In exchange for my property taxes, the streets to my property are maintained, fire and emergency services are afforded, a judicial system that preserves my property rights is in place, and a variety of other services are rendered. Property taxes pay for the trappings of a civil society in which one does not need force to assert and protect the right to enjoy one's property.
If I am an idiot, you are a crank. Stop besmirching the word "conservative" by associating it with your positions.
Dude, you are way beyond conservative. I am one you would classify as an "idiot" since I claim to own property and I pay property taxes.
A variety of governmental entities, ALL ELECTED, levy taxes against property. The budget hearings are open forums where any citizen may comment or propose changes. In exchange for my property taxes, the streets to my property are maintained, fire and emergency services are afforded, a judicial system that preserves my property rights is in place, and a variety of other services are rendered. Property taxes pay for the trappings of a civil society in which one does not need force to assert and protect the right to enjoy one's property.
If I am an idiot, you are a crank. Stop besmirching the word "conservative" by associating it with your positions.
As long as you pay property taxes, you will never own property.
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'd only support something like this if there were no interest accruing on the past tax amount. It's one thing to defer and quite another to lock the elderly/disabled into compounded debt. This is about the same as a reverse mortgage in my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
As long as you pay property taxes, you will never own property.
Not if you want to own property with a street, sidewalk, street lights, sewer, water and electricity... I guess. Let's also not forget police, fire/emt services and 911.
I'd only support something like this if there were no interest accruing on the past tax amount. It's one thing to defer and quite another to lock the elderly/disabled into compounded debt. This is about the same as a reverse mortgage in my mind.
Not if you want to own property with a street, sidewalk, street lights, sewer, water and electricity... I guess.
If you want property with various services, then do not expect to ever own property. I am looking at property with a street, sewer, water, electricity, phone services and no poperty taxes. I can give up street lights and a sidewalk. A small price to pay for actually owning the property.
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?
That is a good question but my thoughts on that are that as a homeowner that is struggling and can't pay their taxes so they choose to defer still own the house and when something breaks they can't call the landlord but have to get it fixed themselves. The renter just calls the landlord.
First post from a right winger and of course the classic "blame Obama" comes out,..I wonder if any thread can make it past the first page without the goons throwing in their dodge, twist, and "blame Obama" troll tactics.
If you consider Obama blameless, you would have to consider him worthless.
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.
