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.
You own a non-owner occupied apartment building.. 10 units.. your annual tax is 10K. So you are going to divide that tax equally by apt. Let's say these are all 1 BR units to make it easy. So each apartment pays 1K per unit by their rent payment. Also assuming that only 1 person lives in each 1BR... the "tax" as you call it becomes 1K per person.
Next door is an owner-occupied home which because they have a homestead exemption pays only 8K in taxes. They are a family of four. That is 2K per person, correct?
Who's getting the better deal on paying for the local services that all of them use equally? Now.. what happens if someone in those apartments gets married? The per person cost of that BR just went down, correct? You've got to look at the bigger picture once in awhile than just your own little, "its not fair" that landlords get charged more than homeowners. If you really wanted to get down and technical about it being "fair" then local taxes should not be tied to real estate at all and should be tied to those who use the services the most. Although... most folks would go bat-crap crazy if that were to happen.....
Also we've not even taken into consideration assessed value of the property. Those ten apartments have 10 kitchens and 10 bathrooms (which are the most expensive things in a home). One of the reasons that most apartment's or multi-family real estate is so expensive to begin with. Even if there wasn't something called a homeowner exemption, that property by its very existence would be taxed greater...
Ah your premise is incorrect! Michigan's nonhomestead tax is specifically dedicated to operating local schools - so the apartment dwellers use NONE of their nonhomestead tax dollars, while the family of four probably has two kids in school. Which means that the homeowner family definitely gets a better deal, while the apartment owner and his tenants get screwed.
And since you brought up assessed value...Michigan has a cap on yearly increases in taxable value (TV), which is more relevant to property taxes than assessed value (AV). (TV usually lags behind AV,) TV is reset (increased) to AV when a property is sold. On average, rental properties are sold more frequently than owner-occupied homes, so on average TV is a larger percentage of AV for renntal properties than it is for owner-occupied homes. Which means that rentals are overtaxed relative to owner-occupied, even before considering the nonhomestead tax.
On top of this, Michigan has a quirky tax limitation constitutional amendment (Headlee Amendment) which allows voters to override the taxing limits imposed by Headlee. So what happens is that when Headlee restrains property tax increases...homeowners override the limitation on the nonhomestead tax (not paid by homeowners) but never vote to override the tax limit on their own homes.
Hmmmm... but didn't you write in the OP that "It's quite simple for me.....you get back what you put into life."
The children are not their parents. Why do you insist that people (the children) should be punished for something they didn't do in the same breath that you insist nobody should be rewarded for something they didn't do?
I cannot help children who have scumbag parents.
What more can we taxpayers do than offer free school, free meals, free housing, free utilities, etc, etc.?
How are my beliefs "punishing" children?
Yet again, I'm being asked by lefties what I'M going to do to help other people's children.
Why are responsible people like me constantly demonized for speaking out about being looted, while the recipient class gets a pass?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Not really, if renters are not taxed, property taxes are irrelevant to them.
To most renters they are not relevant. I've never seen a renter, even when I was one who went in and asked for a breakdown of the costs of their rent.
Cost of acquisition
RE tax
building insurance
liability insurance
maintenance and upkeep
market rate
profit
If I remember correctly, the only reason that you even know exactly what the tax is on your rental is because you pay the tax directly and he reduced the "rent." because of it. He's no dummy. That is basically income that he doesn't have to claim, nor does he have to pay tax on it. Since it never hits his hands. I'd be real curious to know if he's claiming it as tax paid however....
That ostensibly has nothing to do with this thread... at least according to the OP which is about defining "fairness."
Because by the OP's definition, inheritance of any sort is "unfair."
If the OP's real intent was other than to whine about the government, he could very well have responded with something like, "No. But all of the property that would otherwise be inherited should be burned." Or, "No. All the property that would otherwise be inherited should be left as sort of a museum to the dead."
But he didn't do that. Instead he defended what in the OP he declared to be unfair.
So, my question still stands... is this thread really about defining "fairness?" Or is it just another of Alphamale's perennial whines about government coercion?
What would lead you to hallucinate that I feel the thread "shouldn't be about government?" A more sophisticated reader would have understood that my claim is that the thread actually is completely about government, and has nothing to do with any definition of "fairness."
A) Hey....you said "government coercion!" Cool!
B) I didn't ask for a Websters dictionary definition of "fair". I asked to "define" "fair".
Everyone has their own definition. But me taking something from you without compensation is wrong no matter what my need is.
Well that confirms it then. He's most definitely in error if you agree with him.
Of course you are arguing semantics, which is all too typical. But if you REALLY want to split hairs here ... the sequence goes like this ...
1) the subtenant pays the rent
2) the tenant pays the tax
3) the owner RECEIVES the tax payments
And if you don't believe me, just watch what happens if the tax payments are not reveived. The owner will evict the subtenant, serve notice to the tenant of record at the tax office, and take possession of the property,
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Property .... the "dirt" is the single greatest factor in property value ... not toilets and stoves.
You want to get technical.. the LOCATION of the dirt is a greater factor. But all things being equal. Two parcels, the same exact size, setting next to each other made up of the same exact dirt would have the same exact value. The structures and/or improvements on that dirt are what ultimately becomes the greater factor.
B) I didn't ask for a Websters dictionary definition of "fair". I asked to "define" "fair".
Everyone has their own definition. But me taking something from you without compensation is wrong no matter what my need is.
I cannot allow the deeper wisdom of this and your original post to be passed over without more comprehensive examination.
The relative nature of what constitutes "fair' in the minds of each individual gives life to the evil which is done in the name of "fairness". The liberal sees absolutely nothing wrong with stealing your money to give to another ... they need only a "fair" reason. To them, the ends justify the means. After all, it's just not "fair" that some have what others don't have. This is the same type of rationalizing a thief employs, when he sees you with something he needs.
There has been more unfairness imposed on more people under the guise of fairness than any other single excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt If renters are not taxed, why not raise property taxes on rental property 1000 percent?
That's a complete non sequitur.on sequitur.
...the above is NOT a nonsequitur. Why not raise the property tax 1000 percent? Renters don't pay the property tax right?
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.
