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.
There is absolutely NO LOGIC to it. Single taxpayers with good incomes get screwed with taxes, Social Security, property taxes, federal stimulus, etc. We are always paying for the “greater good of society”.
What would you prefer to pay for with your tax dollars?
And if you don’t have a home you don’t pay property taxes. When you purchase a home you are saying you have the ability to pay the taxes on it. If you cant afford the taxes you can’t afford the mortgage. And same logic as in the more money or larger asset you have the More you pay in taxes.
Only people who are homeless don't pay property taxes. People who depend upon landlords for their housing pay property taxes through their rent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durpie
[b]Income taxes are even more unfair because they’re progressive, where as property taxes are flat.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Income taxes are either a flat rate tax or graduated. Federal income taxes are graduated--people with higher incomes pay at a higher rate. Michigan's income tax rate is a flat rate. In both cases, people who make more pay more in taxes (theoretically, it actually depends upon deductions and loopholes). With a graduated tax, they may pay quite a bit more.
However, the focus on tax rates is overblown. For example, it doesn't matter whether or not the corporate income tax rate is high when so many corporations making billions of dollars pay absolutely zero in federal income taxes (and some receive tax credits!). Now that's a welfare program that everyone should agree needs to be changed!
By the way, property taxes are not "flat". Millage rates may be the same in a community, but the property tax is based upon variable assessments--higher valued houses have higher tax assessments.
Totally agree. But isn't that a very different set of questions?
btw... wasn't it those questions which led CA off the cliff with prop 13 in the 70's?
Not a different set of questions... totally relevant to "ability to pay". Size of house and assessed value have no consideration for income.
There are people who are retired with near zero or very low income that are stuck paying property tax that they no longer can afford (ie ability to pay). Every few years, simple reassessments that keep raising their taxes... often at no fault nor action of their own.
There are plenty of reasons why a person with low income or even zero income are also owners of property. There is an adult mentally disabled son whose caretaker/parents recently passed and I assume the property passed on to him. Not zero income (he works bagging groceries) but not near enough to cover property taxes. If they were based on ability to pay, then they should be a percentage of his minimum wage income.
Not a different set of questions... totally relevant to "ability to pay".
Not when you cite that one standard in isolation to all other factors. Not at all.
Especially not when you avoid the most critical factor: asset value.
The soap operas and sob stories of specific instances are also quite immaterial to the points.
if you don’t have a home you don’t pay property taxes. When you purchase a home you are saying you have the ability to pay the taxes on it. If you cant afford the taxes you can’t afford the mortgage. And same logic as in the more money or larger asset you have the More you pay in taxes. Income taxes are even more unfair because they’re progressive, where as property taxes are flat.
Untrue... renters also pay property taxes indirectly.
Your argument is irrelevant. Flat or progressive, it doesn't matter since property tax doesn't take into consideration income. Either would be fairer than the current system. It also ignores unforseen events. A quick rise in assessed values of the property that could no be predicted. A loss of income through a tragic event... etc. It also ignores that people do have events that result in income reduction.
Case in point, you are still responsible for the same amount of property tax just before and after you retire. When you retire your income generally reduces but your property tax still remains the same as when you were employed. In fact, a retired person can actually have the property tax go up while their income goes down due to assessed values going up even if the property was not expanded, improved on.
This issue with property taxes was "band aided" for senior citizens in NJ due to the unfairness of property taxes towards our senior citizens. They have implemented a program that subsidizes property taxes on a property for senior citizens effectively freezing the property taxes owed. This band aid though still ignores a variety of home owners who either suffered a family event that would greatly reduce the family's ability to meet property tax costs...
Not when you cite that one standard in isolation to all other factors. Not at all.
Especially not when you avoid the most critical factor: asset value.
The soap operas and sob stories of specific instances are also quite immaterial to the points.
In other words, you have no real response.
Thought so...
btw.. retiring is not an isolated uncommon event. There are many areas in which assessed values are climbing very quickly without any fault of the current residence. Again not an uncommon event. Inheritance of property from parent to child is also not an uncommon event.
But these seniors and retirees had somebody pay for THEIR schooling when they were kids! What's really sad is that some places, like DC, spend LOTS of taxpayer money on schools, yet DC schools are among the worst in the country. Taxes are a necessary evil. Just wait until MILLIONS more ILLEGALS come here DEMANDING their "rights," and FREE STUFF FOR ALL!! Trump/AMERICA 2020
Did you REALLY have to bring politics into this thread?!! Ugh
some 55 plus communities in long island are exempting them from school taxes . school taxes alone can be 10k a year .
I had a friend and wife who moved to a Great Neck co-op in retirement, probably 55+. (He is now deceased.) Could that be the sort of property that would be exempted?
if you don’t have a home you don’t pay property taxes. When you purchase a home you are saying you have the ability to pay the taxes on it. If you cant afford the taxes you can’t afford the mortgage. And same logic as in the more money or larger asset you have the More you pay in taxes. Income taxes are even more unfair because they’re progressive, where as property taxes are flat.
Lol, that is the usual logic "if you do not want to pay property tax, then just be homeless".
Yes, when first purchase a home, have the ability, means to pay property tax, so, what about in ten, 20, 50 years?
You still have not even addressed the points made from my or other posters, you essentially just restated what the current property tax system is. Yea, we all know, we all pay, we get what it is, thus our complaints about it and the discussion.
You are assuming every home has a mortgage, they do not. You are assuming property tax never goes up or down, it does. You are assuming a homeowner will always have the means to pay, they potentially will not.
Income taxes are much more fair as the only time you pay an income tax is when you work and get income. Without this, you are not obligated to pay a tax at all. Furthermore, an income tax is based on your means to pay, meaning you get income, you pay. Property tax however, has no bearing if you have the ability to pay or not, you owe whether you made zero dollars or a million. Whether you were in the hospital for a year fighting cancer, or worked 2080 hours just fine.
Again, no one says there should not be taxes, but the tax system of is being pegged to the value of the home, and the fact this makes everyone a "renter" from the gov, needs to go. No one should ever, ever, ever, ever, be forced out of their home due to property tax.
Then it's the responsibility of any homeowner to select a property where they know they will be able to pay those property taxes even if the home is paid off. I would never buy a home in states like New Jersey, Illinois, New Hampshire, Vermont, etc. simply because I refuse to pay high tax rates like they have.
So people are supposed to be able to look into the future and foresee that their house just might be situated in an area that might experience a surge in property values?
I don't much care for property taxes, but I do understand that social services need to be funded somehow. But to me, it's not fair to be taxed on something that you have no control over, and have no way to foresee how much it may increase. If we're going to have property taxes, they should be capped for each homeowner at whatever they were when they bought their home. That way, the buyer would be able to determine whether or not they'd be able to afford to live there in an ongoing basis. When they sell, the tax can reset to whatever its value is at that time, for the new buyer.
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.
