Should property taxes be abolished?

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, but not in the Republican sense of fiscal conservatism. I believe in Government programs for the greater good, but I also believe that our hard earned tax dollars need to be maximized for all it's worth and not wasted, as it is often done.

That said, I would like to talk about property taxes and what we really own. I have a hard time with the idea of the government taking my property away because i failed to pay my property taxes. A home can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and may take you most of your life to own. You may have paid your taxes for 20 years and then some boob gets into office and screws the economy and you can't make your tax payment for 8-10 years. Bamm, the government takes your house from you.

I find the property tax to be morally and constitutionally wrong. It seems that ownership is a fallacy, when the government can take it away for not paying taxes on the property. I think that we need to find some other way to make up these taxes.

One of the reasons the Colonies broke from Britain was land and land tax issues.

It seems to go against everything that we tout to be America.

Help pay for services that you, as a property owner, continue to use. They include fire, police, water, government, libraries, schools, healthcare, transit, roads, etc.

So, I would say I sympathize with anyone who has difficult financial straits, but they need to pay.

Just find some other way to get that money. People should not be at risk of losing their homes just because they can't make their property tax payments.

Taxing property seems quite logical to me.

Property taxes are essential to pay for any areas' services, especially in rural areas. If there were no propery taxes there would be no schools in rural America, and while schools in urban areas would survive(there is a large enough population to make for a hefty sales tax base), the quality of education and other services would be woefully low. If you cannot pay your property taxes for a year or two, the county that you owe to usually has some plan that allows for deffered payment. But letting taxes go for 8-10 years is just plain negligent. Work with your county and they can help you come up with a payment plan.

payment. No landlord prices rental without factoring in the property tax cost.

In place of local property taxes we should have a LOCAL INCOME TAX! This way everyone shares the burden. In my hometown, I don't wish to say where, our local budget increases 6-8% every year!!! Blame this on the school budget because all of these DAMN Republican Yuppie Parents want "the BEST" for little Johnnie. They move in, demand more and more and more for their children such as WE pay for the Sports Dues, we want more teachers, and so forth!!!
Then the Board of Education and the schools can't take care of their students so they hire ASSISTANTS for the Principals!!!! More administrative crap. After 2-3 years the DAMN YUPPIES move on and more come in and want more and more and more. This is why I say we should have a local income tax so that the burden is shared evenly by everyone. What about the retired folks who are on a fixed income??? They can't afford these damn increases!

so much is paid by the upper few percent. Their income changes the most dramatically from year to year.

A rich person may have almost all his money in stocks. In a good year he may pay millions in capital gains taxes. In a bad year, he owes zero. If your budget depends on that, you will see huge swings in the amount of income your city takes in.

There was a story in USA today not long ago comparing why Gerogia's state budget was not a big problem this year and California's was. It pointed out that the main difference was that California depends so heavily on state income taxes and when the stock market had three bad years in a row, California's tax receipts got reamed. Georgia, depending on property and sales taxes much more saw only slight changes in its intakes.

To run your state you need a fairly steady and reliable source of income, so it better not be reliant on stock gains.

has the means to pick up, sell their house and buy a new one elsewhere in the nation.

. . . parents didn't come in demanding everything under the sun.

We have a.p.s for schools over 400 students. 2 people to handle the administration of a school that large, with a budget of more than $3,000,000 - I'd put it up against private business any day.

I wish we didn't have to do any "administrative crap" - it's certainly not my favorite thing. But the fact is, SOMEONE has to fill out all the damn forms, pay the bills, make the payroll, answer the phone calls, track the inventory, evaluate the teachers, provide the training, stay after school for all events from junior chess club to soccer to orchestra. Heck, I sometimes wonder why anyone does this . . .

1: 700 students
2: 400 students
3: 175 students

All THREE schools have Assistant Principals!

Now why does a school with 175 STUDENTS need more than one ADMINISTRATOR?????

We do fine with our schools under 400 with one principal.

a consumption tax should be used to pay for services. Coercing people to pay property tax is robbery.

Consumption tax? LOL!!! Do you think the guy that owns forty properties and lives in a five million dollar home will ever "consume" enough to make up the difference? I don't think so. Consumption based taxes tend to be regressive (can you say "sales tax"?) and are widely frowned upon.

and I am happy to pay it.

But rather the morality of having the government take away your property that you have worked for, because you can't make your property tax payments.

It's a philosophical question. I view it as not really mine, I'm just a (temporary) caretaker of it.
It really gets into issues of territoriality and public vs. private concerns.

Top end, with a reasonable estate tax, by all means end the property tax.

Until then I'll take a partial property tax as the community needs the money, and this does not hit the poor as hard as it hits the middle class (unlike the Texas sales tax).

An Annual asset tax has the fun aspect of the IRS chasing all those folks with "collectibles" - something to look forward to!

:-)

That way you don't penalize those that saved for a very long time to get their dream house by forcing them to sell it.

Great idea. Reasonable, fair, progressive, pragmmatic.

I think that deserves so more expolration. It makes sense, if you are unemployed, you should not be forced to pay property taxes. It should be a flexible sliding scale

bad idea. Apparently you people never had to run a municipal budget.

worth millions, but is able to hide his income through tax accountants. Voila! No taxes.

Higher income = higher value property investment = higher property tax.

Granted, that's not going to be true all the time, but it makes sense to me. Generally, people who earn more money tend to have higher-priced homes. Generally

I bet there are more people losing their houses to banks that foreclose than to governments because of taxes.

So let me get this straight - your handle is "liberal_guerilla" you have an icon of Che, and yet you are calling yourself a "fiscal conservative" and arguing that property owners shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Is this opposite day? Did I wake up in bizzaro world?

Che would agree*

:D














*warning complete assumption

I'd bet

I'm sleepy.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

One of the reasons people buy a home is to stabilize their housing costs. Your principal and interest are fixed (at least they are with a conventional mortgage), and eventually you own it free and clear.

I have no real problem with paying property taxes as a part of the deal, but IMO they should be fixed as well. If it were up to me, your property tax would be set when you purchase a home. At most, government should get an inflation adjustment, but that's it.

Right now, if housing prices in your area boom, the long-term homeowner gets shafted big time. My property assessment tripled last time around. I can assure you my income did NOT triple. Yes, the neighborhood is going great guns in an overheated regional housing market, but all that phantom equity is not money in my pocket to pay the tax man.

If I were retired, this could become a real problem. It's not hard to find people in their 80's whose property tax was, say, $600 a year when they retired but who are being gouged for $6,000 now. People get taxed out of their homes. That's wrong.

Cap it at the level you bought into at the time of purchase. That rewards the long term resident, which is a good thing, and protects the elderly, which is also a good thing.

is one of the most unfair tax of all. The value of ones home

does not reflect ability to pay. Progressive income tax is the only way to travel.

In our area property is generally assessed by an elected assessor, no qualifications

necessary. If you are a "factory worker" your property will be assessed higher than

a farmers, for example.

Our sons house is valued higher than our house and his house is slowly rotting

into the ground, another example of unfairness. Around here fixing up the

exterior of your home is a sure fire way to greatly increase your taxes. High lite GREATLY.

Those POOR people that have devoted most of their meager life's income

into the quality of their home really suffer from the property tax burden in their old age.

Tax income, tax income and tax income.

180

It allows disparities between communities. I believe this was addressed in Savage Inequalities, and Chris Rock also said it.

It can also be highly regressive. A home in a poor neighborhood full of low-value homes must be taxed more heavily to generate the same (or less) revenue than one in a rich neighborhood with a smaller number of McMansions. Thus, the working poor who own their own homes tend to get hammered big time with property taxes.

Prop. tax here is pretty reasonable.
...and you have to recognize, and reward (or penalize) the fact that some property is more valuable than others.

help to the government.

because the rich will be able to control all of the land in a short period of time, and will jack up rent until they get aevery available cent.

That's how it works in Jamaica, which has 0 (or next to 0) property tax, and it leads to many many people getting forced out onto the street by landlords. A strong homeless population keeps rent up, just like a decent unemployed population keeps wages down.

If you really want to give the poor a break, then cut property tax on one property that the given person owns, and exempt only up to some (reasonable) value level.

More reasonable, property ownership should simply be abolished. But that's getting off topic.

which it is. and your story from Jamaica proves the advantage of taxing at rates according to realtive value.

As your income grows, you should pay a sliding assessment, around say 80,000 per year the property tax should be based on 100% of assessed value. Sliding downward to say 25 % at 25,000 per year. The total income of all of the residents in a given home must be included, not just the income of the owner of record. All additional real estate (2nd home, rental property, etc) taxed at 100% of assessment.

A second program, for elderly and disabled people could also be set in place. Under this program, the taxes could be fixed at the real dollar amount paid during their last year of full employment, corrected by the person’s current income. At that time, a market value appraisal would be conducted. The difference between the amount paid, and the assessed taxes would accrue, and when the house is eventually sold, the market appraisal price would be subtracted from the sales price, anything over the appraisal price would be applied to the accrued unpaid taxes, anything that remained after that would go to the estate. This would insulate them from tax increases, but not be a truly free ride. Some of the deferred taxes would be recovered, and in areas with very hot real estates markets at the time of sale, possibly all of the money could be recovered.

I wish I had time to expound further on this idea, but it is suppertime.

Meaning it is based on the value of your home. The value of that property changes over the time you own it--usually upward, but not always.

I can't speak for other states, but in Illinois, a property that has unpaid taxes is on a tax sale only after an effort has been made to collect the taxes--usually for a period of at least one year.

However, (and this is important!)it is a lien on the property that is sold, and it is bid out for the interest percentage that people will pay on the interest. It is NOT the property that is sold! The taxpayer can redeem that with the buyer at anytime. A property's taxes are sold three different years before the actual property is taken. All in all, the average taxpayer should have about five years from the time they don't pay the first tax bill to an actual sale of the house.

I can't get too worked up on that one. YMMV.

Laura

Works the same way.

You get the proceeds after the back taxes are paid, correct?

and other local government programs.

What would you replace them with?

It seems reasonable to me that city and county services accrue to property in those cities and counties, that some sort of taxation is appropriate.


The problem in your scenario is not the property tax, it's the boob who screws up the economy.

sales taxes to raise revenue. But as others have noted, this is a regressive tax - hardest on those who make the least.

Property tax in general taxes those who own assets. This argument is beginning to sound a bit NIMBY. "Everyone else should pay, but not me!"

.... but they are the least regressive of all the tax methods available IMHO. I just don't think any of the alternative taxing methods are any better, and many are a lot worse ("consumption tax" for example).

I don't disagree with people having to pay taxes. I do disagree with the government taking your house if you don't pay taxes on it. IMHO it is just wrong and un-American.

There must be a hundred ways to raise taxes, perhaps we are not being creative enough, my self included.

If the IRS says you owe them, the burden of proof is on YOU that you don't. They can (and do) seize property and all bank accounts. They can make you miserable, and you have no recourse except to prove you paid them what *they* say you owe. Literally, they can leave people without shelter or even money for food.

The drug forfeiture laws are just as bad. If they find it on your property they can take everything connected to it, including the furniture. They can take your car, they can pretty much take everything you own if they want to.

I find a multi year process of collecting property taxes to be far less of an outrage than those allowed the IRS or the drug agents.

Again, YMMV.

Laura

Income taxes are often paid out before you even get your check unless you're an independent contractor or claim too many dependents. I agree that the burden of proof should not be on the individual but rather the person or organization that's making the claim. However, it's so important to have a metal file cabnet to save all of your financial information just in case the feds come knocking one day.

And I couldn't agree more abot property seizures. That is just another way for the government to seize more power.

We would need to see massive reform such that the federal government would support good public schools in all areas. Not gonna happen. Look at schools where there is no property tax base -- poor people live there -- and the little money there is spent on metal detectors and trying to keep too many kids and teachers from getting shot at.

Unless you are going to agitate for a much increased federal funding to our schools, then you would be killing the good public schools that remain by getting rid of property tax. I'm not sure that it would be popular with the voters. The best public schools in Louisiana are in such areas as Mandeville where there is a property tax, and it has not stopped people from moving to Mandeville, even though it is a homestead state and there are lots of other places people could move instead. People know, you pay a reasonable property tax or you pay a ridiculously higher expense for private schools, which are often academically questionable.

If there was another federal New Deal, and our schools were to be supported, then, yes, I certainly agree that property tax can be very harmful because it drives older people out of their communities.

On Edit: In my parish, you register with the assessor when you turn 65 so that your assessment cannot be increased. Why isn't this done in other states? Is it because Louisiana is a homestead state?