*Tax Free Homes*

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry bout that,


1. People who have worked hard for their property can lose it.
2. That is *Anti-American*.
3. Everyone at some point gets sick, some times a prolonged sickness, which can devastate a family financially.
4. Happens all the time, they can't earn money to pay taxes on their homestead.
5. Tax man comes a knocking, they lose everything.
6. Thats not fair!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Bwaahh, life isn't fair. What happened to personal responsibility? How could a health problem financially devastate someone who had been personally responsible and held sufficient insurance? If the notice is fairly given the owner has plenty of time to figure out what to do. They could sell the property and move into a cheaper place. They could take out a loan on the property to pay the tax. Depending on jurisdiction, they could even try negotiating with the city. Taxing authorities are generally easy to work with when you are pro-active about your situation. Its when you are stubborn that they fuck you. And finally - you can, in most jurisdictions, buy the house back from the buyer within a certain number of years, for the same price they paid for it, plus interest - so a tax sale isn't even permanent at first.


I have to say that its amusing that the right has no sympathy for people that lose everything because of a health related bankruptcy - unless it involves a tax sale of their home, then its a grave injustice!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How a tax sale made my old neighborhood a better place to live.

In the neighborhood I moved out of a year ago, there was this old bombed out house when we first moved there, about 5 years ago. It was two doors down from ours. The city came one day and razed the home (Katrina legacy). Then the grass grew up 10 feet high and all of a sudden everyone on the street had a mouse problem. It was really bad in our house. Disgusting. We wound up getting cats, which solved the problem very quickly. But the lot was still a nuissance with its 10 foot tall grass.

The owner - lived in Arkansas or somewhere. I think they may have inherited the property. They may have never even seen it in their life. They did not maintain it for shit.

They neglected it SO much - they didn't pay the taxes on it.

So my neighbor, the one who lived directly next to it, bought it at a tax sale!

But the story doesn't end there......

That got the original owners attention! They wind up buying it back from him, for the same amount he paid plus interest. They put it on the market, sold and made some money for themselves, and the buyer is now building a home on it.

This shit crap lot that was a nuissance to the block, driving down quality of living and property values, became an asset to the neighborhood, and it all started with a tax sale. The owner gets to get rid of a property that is of no use to them, sold at market price, with the only added expense being the interest paid to my neighbor on the property tax he paid for them. And the block gets a new, decent house on it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

They got rid of the property tax in Victorville, CA and they prospered greatly.

Anything done in California should not be taken as a model for any other part of the country.

Look at my post #15 on local government just above.
Would you like to give up local and state control to the Feds? It's the same kind of problem. Keep control as local as possible, and you can make common sense adjustments as needed.

Read again. They got rid of property tax in Victorville, CA and they prospered greatly.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'd be opposed to eliminating property taxes. Property taxes are the only source of revenue to pay for local government: for Fire Dept, Police Dept, schools, County government bureaus and agencies, local welfare, library, etc. If property taxes were deleted then all that would be handeled by the state in the capital, and local control would cease to exist.
It should be used to eliminate sales taxes first, corporate taxes second, and individual income taxes third.

It should also be used at the state level to mitigate problems and costs incurred by the new industries that are peripheral to the new wealth.

That's not true at all. Localities get sales tax. States get income tax. Between those two taxes alone they are receiving plenty of money. They also receive funds from the feds for roads.

I would suggest that education could be properly funded through those taxes and private donations alone.

Getting rid of property taxes would free money for private education which is a better model. That's why if you read the article, the ineffective 'public unions' are opposed.

 

[Againsheila]

Sorry bout that,

1. Thats what I want.
2. People in North Dakota have got a great idea!
3. No tax on property.
4. That sounds fair!
5. LINK:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/north-dakota-voters-consider-ending-property-tax.html?_r=1&hp


"BISMARCK, N.D. — Since Californians shrank their property taxes more than three decades ago by passing Proposition 13, people around the nation have echoed their dismay over such levies, putting forth plans to even them, simplify them, cap them, slash them. In an election here on Tuesday, residents of North Dakota will consider a measure that reaches far beyond any of that — one that abolishes the property tax entirely. "


6. We have to do this in TEXAS!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

It made sense back when we were an agricultural society and our income was based on our property but now that our property is basically where we live, it doesn't make sense anymore. Nobody should ever be taxed out of their homes.

So if someone owes $1,000,000 in back taxes because they were too stingy to pay what they owed the government should just allow them to keep their $10,000,000 home?


What about the person who owes very little on a smaller home? Ever heard of a HELOC? Or reverse mortgage?


Are the roads not nicer in nicer neighborhoods? Do the cops not do a better job of keeping criminals out of the nicer neighborhoods? Are the schools not better in nicer school districts? You just want all the benefits of government in a nice neighborhood without have to pay, right?

I don't care what neighborhood you live in, you shouldn't have to give up your house because you can't pay your taxes. Reverse mortgages are just another way of giving up your home. I have no problems with your heirs paying taxes when they inherit, but I do have a problem with property taxes and I don't care where you live. I live in a low to middle income neighborhood with a high crime rate, not a lot of money makers here and still people lose their homes due to taxes. One family had theirs bought out right from under them, they didn't even know until they got the eviction notice, they lived 5 doors down from me.

Doing away with property taxes would mean no one would owe property taxes, not the rich, not the poor, no one. Don't worry, there are plenty of other ways to tax the people.

 

[Againsheila]

Sorry bout that,


1. People who have worked hard for their property can lose it.
2. That is *Anti-American*.
3. Everyone at some point gets sick, some times a prolonged sickness, which can devastate a family financially.
4. Happens all the time, they can't earn money to pay taxes on their homestead.
5. Tax man comes a knocking, they lose everything.
6. Thats not fair!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Bwaahh, life isn't fair. What happened to personal responsibility? How could a health problem financially devastate someone who had been personally responsible and held sufficient insurance? If the notice is fairly given the owner has plenty of time to figure out what to do. They could sell the property and move into a cheaper place. They could take out a loan on the property to pay the tax. Depending on jurisdiction, they could even try negotiating with the city. Taxing authorities are generally easy to work with when you are pro-active about your situation. Its when you are stubborn that they fuck you. And finally - you can, in most jurisdictions, buy the house back from the buyer within a certain number of years, for the same price they paid for it, plus interest - so a tax sale isn't even permanent at first.


I have to say that its amusing that the right has no sympathy for people that lose everything because of a health related bankruptcy - unless it involves a tax sale of their home, then its a grave injustice!

You're kidding, right? My husband has great insurance and there is still a maximum at which they stop paying. And not everyone has insurance available to them. We went without insurance for more than a year when my husband was unemployed, it was a choice of health insurance or the house payment. For some strange reason, I chose the house payment. Thank God I got a job finally after more than a year of looking that had health insurance because after I did, my husband got colon cancer. Then, after a year and 1/2, the job I had went to India. Thank God my husband was finally rehired at Boeing because shortly thereafter, I got breast cancer. If either one of these things had happened while we were without health insurance, we would have lost everything. Of course, I'm sure you believe we would have deserved it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It made sense back when we were an agricultural society and our income was based on our property but now that our property is basically where we live, it doesn't make sense anymore. Nobody should ever be taxed out of their homes.

So if someone owes $1,000,000 in back taxes because they were too stingy to pay what they owed the government should just allow them to keep their $10,000,000 home?


What about the person who owes very little on a smaller home? Ever heard of a HELOC? Or reverse mortgage?


Are the roads not nicer in nicer neighborhoods? Do the cops not do a better job of keeping criminals out of the nicer neighborhoods? Are the schools not better in nicer school districts? You just want all the benefits of government in a nice neighborhood without have to pay, right?

I don't care what neighborhood you live in, you shouldn't have to give up your house because you can't pay your taxes. Reverse mortgages are just another way of giving up your home. I have no problems with your heirs paying taxes when they inherit, but I do have a problem with property taxes and I don't care where you live. I live in a low to middle income neighborhood with a high crime rate, not a lot of money makers here and still people lose their homes due to taxes. One family had theirs bought out right from under them, they didn't even know until they got the eviction notice, they lived 5 doors down from me.

Doing away with property taxes would mean no one would owe property taxes, not the rich, not the poor, no one. Don't worry, there are plenty of other ways to tax the people.

For the poor it's a choice of free education or no taxes. I'd still take no taxes. There are self education options and often the poor is not worried about education in the first place which is why they are poor.

 

[Againsheila]

So if someone owes $1,000,000 in back taxes because they were too stingy to pay what they owed the government should just allow them to keep their $10,000,000 home?


What about the person who owes very little on a smaller home? Ever heard of a HELOC? Or reverse mortgage?


Are the roads not nicer in nicer neighborhoods? Do the cops not do a better job of keeping criminals out of the nicer neighborhoods? Are the schools not better in nicer school districts? You just want all the benefits of government in a nice neighborhood without have to pay, right?

I don't care what neighborhood you live in, you shouldn't have to give up your house because you can't pay your taxes. Reverse mortgages are just another way of giving up your home. I have no problems with your heirs paying taxes when they inherit, but I do have a problem with property taxes and I don't care where you live. I live in a low to middle income neighborhood with a high crime rate, not a lot of money makers here and still people lose their homes due to taxes. One family had theirs bought out right from under them, they didn't even know until they got the eviction notice, they lived 5 doors down from me.

Doing away with property taxes would mean no one would owe property taxes, not the rich, not the poor, no one. Don't worry, there are plenty of other ways to tax the people.

For the poor it's a choice of free education or no taxes. I'd still take no taxes. There are self education options and often the poor is not worried about education in the first place which is why they are poor.

There are lot's of other taxes besides property tax.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'd be opposed to eliminating property taxes. Property taxes are the only source of revenue to pay for local government: for Fire Dept, Police Dept, schools, County government bureaus and agencies, local welfare, library, etc. If property taxes were deleted then all that would be handeled by the state in the capital, and local control would cease to exist.
It should be used to eliminate sales taxes first, corporate taxes second, and individual income taxes third.

It should also be used at the state level to mitigate problems and costs incurred by the new industries that are peripheral to the new wealth.

That's not true at all. Localities get sales tax. States get income tax. Between those two taxes alone they are receiving plenty of money. They also receive funds from the feds for roads.

I would suggest that education could be properly funded through those taxes and private donations alone.

Getting rid of property taxes would free money for private education which is a better model. That's why if you read the article, the ineffective 'public unions' are opposed.

I'm sorry GG, but the state governments do get sales taxes.

Again read. Localities get sales tax I said and states get income tax. Also, states could levy their own modest sales tax if necessary. And frankly, it's a myth that states need large cofers of money. Big government has became big b/c it's a ponzi scheme or rather big business. Who's clamouring for more big government? People that want easy money is who.

 

[American Horse]

I'd be opposed to eliminating property taxes. Property taxes are the only source of revenue to pay for local government: for Fire Dept, Police Dept, schools, County government bureaus and agencies, local welfare, library, etc. If property taxes were deleted then all that would be handeled by the state in the capital, and local control would cease to exist.
It should be used to eliminate sales taxes first, corporate taxes second, and individual income taxes third.

It should also be used at the state level to mitigate problems and costs incurred by the new industries that are peripheral to the new wealth.

That's not true at all. Localities get sales tax. States get income tax. Between those two taxes alone they are receiving plenty of money. They also receive funds from the feds for roads.

I would suggest that education could be properly funded through those taxes and private donations alone.

Getting rid of property taxes would free money for private education which is a better model. That's why if you read the article, the ineffective 'public unions' are opposed.

I'm sorry GG, but the state governments do get sales taxes. They allow counties to do their own county sales taxes on certain things like restaurants, hospitality sports on top of the state sales tax, but state sales taxes go to state treasury for distribution, and states get state income taxes also. I suppose it depends on the state, but I think that if you do a search you'll find that your own state operates just as I said. The state governments distribute money down to the local authorities just like the federal government does to the states.

I see that you are probably a libertarian, and perhaps believe that education would be financed by private initiatives; I don't share that belief. Education and the things local governments (as I listed them in my post you quoted) do needs to be kept there and interfered with as little as possible. It's state level govt that interferes with local govt and not vice-versa.

And state level governments throughout the country control how locals can handle their own property taxes, such as audits required, reporting to the local taxpayers, and exemption like homestead exemptions and old age exemptions. The state governments can enable old age exemptions so that seniors who no longer work, and who have raised their children can be exempted at some point from the full property tax assessment.

The property tax is a good tax because it is a flat tax based on property owned, and everybody is effected, even renters. If property taxes are too high in the city, low income people who rent will find units outside the city; if they become too high in a county they can find cheaper rent in a nearby outlying county, or they can move on to another state if need be.

As far as I'm concerned cut back at the state level where the interference in local affairs originates from, and empower local government because it's there that citizens can best show up at county councils (the financial authority) or county commissioners (the executive authority) and make their voices heard. Not much can be affected at the state capital that is productive; consider the recent events in Wisconsin’s capital, how chaotic that was. We need local people remonstrating against local authority. State capitals are like Washington, in that they are removed from the local power structure and influence.

When dealing with local boards, the public unions will not so easily inveigle pensions that are higher than they earned while full time employees, or get benefits that their neighbors don’t get. And tyou can oss California out of all rational examples of what’s normal for flyover country.

 

[Againsheila]

That's not true at all. Localities get sales tax. States get income tax. Between those two taxes alone they are receiving plenty of money. They also receive funds from the feds for roads.

I would suggest that education could be properly funded through those taxes and private donations alone.

Getting rid of property taxes would free money for private education which is a better model. That's why if you read the article, the ineffective 'public unions' are opposed.

I'm sorry GG, but the state governments do get sales taxes.

Again read. Localities get sales tax I said and states get income tax. Also, states could levy their own modest sales tax if necessary.

Our state gets about 10% salestax, no income tax. Lot's of other taxes though.

 

[American Horse]

I'd be opposed to eliminating property taxes. Property taxes are the only source of revenue to pay for local government: for Fire Dept, Police Dept, schools, County government bureaus and agencies, local welfare, library, etc. If property taxes were deleted then all that would be handeled by the state in the capital, and local control would cease to exist.
It should be used to eliminate sales taxes first, corporate taxes second, and individual income taxes third.

It should also be used at the state level to mitigate problems and costs incurred by the new industries that are peripheral to the new wealth.

Not true, sales tax is the other significant local government revenue.
Property taxes v. sales tax revenue is essentially a lower class v upper class debate. Property taxes tend to push the burden more on the wealthy, while straight up flat sales tax is essentially a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor (but if things like food are exempt from sales tax this may not be so much the case)

Please give me the name of a state in which the most significant local govt revenue stream comes from sales taxes...

All your other assertions I agree with, and most states do not tax raw food but do apply sales tax to prepared food (IE restaurant food and food that is "warmed" by the seller)

Indiana sales tax - whta does it apply to (use my own state because it is typical of most states - there are oddities like New York (don't know) and California (don't know) but most states, IMO, do now alow municipalities and counties to apply sales taxes because residents are then induced to cross county or municipality lines to access lower rates or no tax rates)

 

[Againsheila]

I'd be opposed to eliminating property taxes. Property taxes are the only source of revenue to pay for local government: for Fire Dept, Police Dept, schools, County government bureaus and agencies, local welfare, library, etc. If property taxes were deleted then all that would be handeled by the state in the capital, and local control would cease to exist.
It should be used to eliminate sales taxes first, corporate taxes second, and individual income taxes third.

It should also be used at the state level to mitigate problems and costs incurred by the new industries that are peripheral to the new wealth.

Not true, sales tax is the other significant local government revenue.
Property taxes v. sales tax revenue is essentially a lower class v upper class debate. Property taxes tend to push the burden more on the wealthy, while straight up flat sales tax is essentially a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor (but if things like food are exempt from sales tax this may not be so much the case)

Please give me the name of a state in which the most significant local govt revenue stream comes from sales taxes...

All your other assertions I agree with, and most states do not tax raw food but do apply sales tax to prepared food (IE restaurant food and food that is "warmed" by the seller)

Indiana sales tax - whta does it apply to (use my own state because it is typical of most states - there are oddities like New York (don't know) and California (don't know) but most states, IMO, do now alow municipalities and counties to apply sales taxes because residents are then induced to cross county or municipality lines to access lower rates or no tax rates)

Washington has one, if not the highest sales tax in the nation and we have no income tax. Different counties and cities each add onto that sales tax so that in Puyallup you may pay a different sales tax than in Federal Way.

 

[American Horse]

They got rid of the property tax in Victorville, CA and they prospered greatly.

Anything done in California should not be taken as a model for any other part of the country.

Look at my post #15 on local government just above.
Would you like to give up local and state control to the Feds? It's the same kind of problem. Keep control as local as possible, and you can make common sense adjustments as needed.

Read again. They got rid of property tax in Victorville, CA and they prospered greatly.

The unemployment rate in Victorville, CA, is 16.50%, with job growth of -2.22%.
Future job growth over the next ten years is predicted to be 19.06%.

Victorville, CA Taxes
Victorville, CA, sales tax rate is 7.75%.
Income tax is 9.30%.

Victorville, CA Income and Salaries
The income per capita is $18,234, which includes all adults and children.
The median household income is $47,752.

Source for above and much more economic data for Victorville California

 

[Political Junky]

The conservative population of North Dakota voted it down. They knew it would hurt infrastructure.

 

[American Horse]

Not true, sales tax is the other significant local government revenue.
Property taxes v. sales tax revenue is essentially a lower class v upper class debate. Property taxes tend to push the burden more on the wealthy, while straight up flat sales tax is essentially a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor (but if things like food are exempt from sales tax this may not be so much the case)

Please give me the name of a state in which the most significant local govt revenue stream comes from sales taxes...

All your other assertions I agree with, and most states do not tax raw food but do apply sales tax to prepared food (IE restaurant food and food that is "warmed" by the seller)

Indiana sales tax - whta does it apply to (use my own state because it is typical of most states - there are oddities like New York (don't know) and California (don't know) but most states, IMO, do now alow municipalities and counties to apply sales taxes because residents are then induced to cross county or municipality lines to access lower rates or no tax rates)

Washington has one, if not the highest sales tax in the nation and we have no income tax. Different counties and cities each add onto that sales tax so that in Puyallup you may pay a different sales tax than in Federal Way.

I find that to be true (bolded) and usually the amounts added onto the state rate is down in the 1-3% rate level. And they may tax just certain sectors like hospitiality (motel/hotel), or domestic utilities; criminal justice, public safety, things that hopefully will not discourage new immigrants taking up residency within their jurisdictions. The do not usually use them for general revenue funding.

Popular resort destinations are typical jurisdictions of local sales taxes.

 

[signelect]

We have no income tax in Texas where does the money come from if not property tax. I you don't pay your bills why should i have to make up the money from my pocket. I am tried of financing the sick lame and lazy. Get a job. I am almost 70 and work full time and pay all my bills on time. We do live high on the hog and have a 3 bd room apartment that we can afford. What has happened to personal responsibility.

 

[American Horse]

We have no income tax in Texas where does the money come from if not property tax. I you don't pay your bills why should i have to make up the money from my pocket. I am tried of financing the sick lame and lazy. Get a job. I am almost 70 and work full time and pay all my bills on time. We do live high on the hog and have a 3 bd room apartment that we can afford. What has happened to personal responsibility.

I support propoerty taxes because they are closest to the people who pay, and who benefit. Property taxes, like gasoline excise taxes (which pay for road maintenance), are AD VALORIUM taxes, for specific purposes.

Like you, we sized down for our final home in retirment, something that the property taxes are manageable for, and moved out into the county to avoid paying the city rate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'd be opposed to eliminating property taxes. Property taxes are the only source of revenue to pay for local government: for Fire Dept, Police Dept, schools, County government bureaus and agencies, local welfare, library, etc. If property taxes were deleted then all that would be handeled by the state in the capital, and local control would cease to exist.
It should be used to eliminate sales taxes first, corporate taxes second, and individual income taxes third.

It should also be used at the state level to mitigate problems and costs incurred by the new industries that are peripheral to the new wealth.

Not true, sales tax is the other significant local government revenue.
Property taxes v. sales tax revenue is essentially a lower class v upper class debate. Property taxes tend to push the burden more on the wealthy, while straight up flat sales tax is essentially a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor (but if things like food are exempt from sales tax this may not be so much the case)

Please give me the name of a state in which the most significant local govt revenue stream comes from sales taxes...

I didn't say it was the MOST significant, I said it was A significant source.
Though I suppose I should have said it was the other significant source of TAX revenue.
If you look at the data here:

What are the sources of revenue for local governments?

you'll see most local governments get their money not from taxes.

I own a home and paid about as much in property tax as I did sales tax.


All your other assertions I agree with, and most states do not tax raw food but do apply sales tax to prepared food (IE restaurant food and food that is "warmed" by the seller)

Indiana sales tax - whta does it apply to (use my own state because it is typical of most states - there are oddities like New York (don't know) and California (don't know) but most states, IMO, do now alow municipalities and counties to apply sales taxes because residents are then induced to cross county or municipality lines to access lower rates or no tax rates)[/QUOTE]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not true, sales tax is the other significant local government revenue.
Property taxes v. sales tax revenue is essentially a lower class v upper class debate. Property taxes tend to push the burden more on the wealthy, while straight up flat sales tax is essentially a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor (but if things like food are exempt from sales tax this may not be so much the case)

Please give me the name of a state in which the most significant local govt revenue stream comes from sales taxes...

I didn't say it was the MOST significant, I said it was A significant source.
Though I suppose I should have said it was the other significant source of TAX revenue.
If you look at the data here:

What are the sources of revenue for local governments?

you'll see most local governments get their money not from taxes.

I own a home and paid about as much in property tax as I did sales tax.