"I pay property taxes so...!" Well...Um...Renters pay both the...

...property owner's property tax PLUS profit to the aformentioned "owner" dammit!

This is something that has always appalled me when it comes to local gummint issues.

A "Renter" pays ALL of the associated property tax costs of the "Owner", plus some "Profit" for the landLord's use, unless of course the "Owner" is daft. ****I will NOT accept anomolies, which I have had myself, as a refutation of the basic "Renter/Rentee" relationship, sorry, it's crap****

These "memes" must be quashed.

of owners that they are better than renters and have more rights- (ie- my 4 dogs need to go out sometimes and if your dog is outside, they just sit and bark at him so can you put your dog inside like i have the two other neighbors with dogs do because i cant control my dogs? i own my house- you just rent therefore you must do as i wish)

At least in some sense. In particular, owners are legally responsible for any harm caused to other property owners that originates on their property renters are only responsible for their own actions.

Speaking as a current owner, I can tell you that the real reason owners are such pains in the ass are that they have no choice. If a renter doesn't like the neighbors, it doesn't cost much to pick up and move. If you own however, the cost of moving is very high. If you add up all the costs of selling a property plus all the costs of buying a new property of the same value, it is about 10% of the property value. Where I live, thanks to over inflated realestate prices that would be about $60k. Basically that means if I want to continue to live in a nice quiet neighborhood, I've got no choice but to knock heads with anyone who makes it less pleasant or less quiet. Therefore if you annoy me (and for some reason it always seems to be renters that end up on that list in my neighborhood) then my choice ends up being spend $60k to move, or ride your ass until you moderate your behavior. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one I'm going to pick.

There are definately advantages and disadvantages to both. Homeowners pay property taxes no matter if the property is rented or not. Most property is not always rented. Some property is never rented. Taxes are eternal, as are tenants who skip out, sometimes taking your appliances along with them, maintenance and repairs. Being a landlord is a giant pain in the butt. I love being a renter. If something breaks, it's not my problem. I make a phone call, it's done. The only reason I bought a place at all was as an investment. But it's not an investment. It's a part time job.

The inhabitent must pay "council tax" (american speak = property tax) and it is supposed to cover water, sewage, garbage, roads, and whatever else usages the tenant is demanding from the government services regarding his/her life at said location. Council tax was once called "poll tax" before a foolish political blunder that cost the conservatives power.....

Similarly, i remember the row about prop. 13 and its impact on california limiting property taxes to 1% of the assessed value.... ooh!

Given the facts of life that a tenant demands sewage, garbage and the lot, does it not make sense that un-occupied properties not be taxed?

Why is american property tax assessed on the owner rather than the resident... it seems wholly more intelligent to tax the end user.

...nship.

"Why is american property tax assessed on the owner rather than the resident... it seems wholly more intelligent to tax the end user."

It already is becaused it's passed on in the rent, unless the "owner" is either taking an intentional loss (or stupid), so what's your point?

Be nice and remember I'm a product of the exploitive American Capitalist System...

is that putting the responsibility for paying for services directly to the service users is a focus missed by the US, as somehow landlords are more responsible than renters... ha!

The focus is to charge people for the resources they burn directly. The owner does not burn resources in an empty property... less tax. Fairly, it makes sense to tax the resource consumer... the british system focuses more appropriately on this element. The owner is not in the mix.

There would be alot of empty buildings if this came to be since the landlords would not rent the property. The house would just be an empty "investment". Plus JMichael's right, the end user is taxed anyway because of the rent.

No rent control here except in a very few places.

The "Owner" not the Occupant.

No?

Macro Sweetheart, Macro.

My point is the political power that's inequitably given to Property Owneres/Rentees in America. And the converse lack of Power for those footing the bills.

you discount 1000 years of peasant insurgency. The landlord is responsible for the property and has the means and the power to pay... sort of british rent controlll except far removed.... the tenant for all practial purposes "owns" the croft property round 'ere. The owner has fewer rights than the tenant... then again that was what all those brilliant wallace, tyler and sorts fought for all those dynasties.

i refer you to the ex-charman of the british labour party speaking on the peasant revolt (paul foot is dead now).... the lecture called The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 at this link is worth seriously your time to have a listen... it is wholly educational in this regard: http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/

ITs a matter of time until the peasant revolte happens in america, and when it does, the owner will end up responsible... if s/he is not already.

when did Paul Foot die?

Who is taking the risk?

owners of unoccupied properties pay the council tax at half the normal rate. Houses with only 1 person over 18 pay 75% of normal. And it doesn't cover water and sewerage - those are done as a seperate bill with a private utility.

my council tax includes my water and sewage... but this be scotland... perhaps down england way its not so generous.

How did Scotland get away with escaping privatization? Do you pay the water/sewerage money in the council tax bands, or based on the precise 'rateable value'?

The water for this house comes from about 3 miles off i can see in the moonlight as a write this from yonder headland... and soon it will change but still under the council tax umbrella... perhaps because the north highland estates never separated water as cities did.

Sewage here is a local septic tank issue... mine drains in to a reed bed of 100x100 meters before leeching towards the ocean.... no privatization unless i privatize it myself :-)

I'm A-band.. tiny highland croft house... surely not the british standard, but exemplfying the diversity in the council tax system.

Glenlivet.

AND the electric fee, and the gas for heat, and the telephone...

Oh, over here we also pay tax on the water. Used to be that the water was a tax, but since churches are tax-exempt, most had these "water motors" to run the blower for the organ. Gobbled up the gallonage. So, then they changed over to a "user fee" priced per unit, and the churches couldn't get rid of those engines fast enough...

as has been stated repeatedly, unless my landlord is a doofus who might forget how to breath some day, he's passing the property tax (along with the mortgage and interest)along to me.

This discussion reminds me of the arguments over taxing corporations because it's unfair, forgetting for the moment that a corporation pays NOTHING, it passes it's costs along to the consumer.Corporations exist to make a profit, not pay expenses.

but I really don't see where you are going with this. How is this different from the grocery buyer whose cerery purchase also pays a proportional part of the taxes, mortgage and all other expenses of the store ? Its just binis.

I suppose one must have experianced the general dissmissive public comments made about "renters", in regard to public policy, over a sustained period of time to get my drift.

That's OK though.

n/t

Renters pay rent (hence the name renter). The property owner pays the property tax as well as maintenance, insurance, mortgage costs, etc. Usually, but not always, the rents cover these costs plus permit a profit too. In areas with rapid property value appreciation a rental property can operate at a negative cash flow and still generate an overall profit when the property is sold.

Or you could have an experience like mine and rent a property at a negative cash flow and then take a loss on the sale all because you had to move and didn't have the cash to get out of an underwater loan.

<Notice my disclaimer in the topic starter:-) >

"Usually, but not always"

No shit.

If you are a renter that pays property tax, how much is it? Do you write two checks, one to the landlord and one to the county? If you don't pay the tax does the county evict you and make the owner rent to someone who will pay the tax?

I can damn sure tell you how much I pay in property tax. I write actual checks to the county twice a year. If I don't pay it, they will foreclose on my property and sell it to someone else.


Edited to add: WTF is a "meme"?

But, for your benefit, I'll repeat it: If a Property owner is worth his/her weight in dogshit the rent collected will surpass the total cost of loan interest (Or not if owned outright), property taxes, and other fees & taxes.

What I'm saying then is that the Renter is PAYING for all of that crap PLUS profit (Unless anomolies are in play and that's NOT MY POINT) so equitable Local political power/influence ought to be given.

In case you're wondering I have a specific experience of "Property Owners Only" voting on property related issue which effected all involved, Renter & Owner, alike.

PS~ I'll keep my personal situation private, thanks.

I didn't realise there was such a thing as "Property Owners Only" voting. We don't get that in England.

If that is enough for the landlord to cover property taxes plus mortgage and maintenance, that is good for him/her.
Look, most landlords had to bust their butts to buy the property... now they own it and it makes sense they are gonna charge as much as the market can sustain...

that big business owners wnat to drive down wages to increase their profits..which generally they invest in property and then want renters to be able to afford the rent..welcome to the evils of the merry go round Capitalism which spins inward getting smaller and smaller......

Your landlord has to give you a form that lists the total rent paid in the last year, the percentage of rent that goes to property taxes, and the total dollar amount of property taxes paid. Depending on your income and the amount of rent that went to taxes, you may get some of the tax amount refunded to you.

Income and taxes paid also figure into whether or not a homeowner can get a property tax refund using the Homestead Credit Minnesota applies to a person's principal residence.

From an appraisal viewpoint the Real Estate Taxes are viewed as an operating expense for income properties. When you calcualte the earnings of any given rental prperty the taxes are listed as one more expense along with stuff like maintenece and what-not.

For the landlord, the typical approach is to figure out the Property Taxes and include it in the monthly rent--kind of like they do if you have a mortgage and escrow your taxes.

If you rent, you DO pay property taxes, IMO.

Now, in Illinois, we have a "Homestead Limited Exemption" for owner occupied property. If it is a rental unit, it is not allowed that exemption. What some landlords have done is to put it in the lease agreement that the renter pays the property taxes, they collect those taxes every month and then escrow them FOR the renter so that the taxes are reduced by that exemption amount.

What they are doing is exploiting a loophole in the Illinois property tax code that views a leasehold as a sort of bastard ownership. The owner gets the benefit of owning the property and renting it out and still gets that exemption.

Laura

You mean, people who are using property as a business (renting it out), actually pass on the cost associated with doing business, to their customers? :wtf:



I hope this idea don't leak out, why, some corporations might get the idea that when they are taxed, or their taxes are raised, they might want to pass that on to the consumer as well. :think:

In fact, just the other day I read an article about the poor state of the rental market in flyover country. It seems that landlords have to offer one or more months of free rent in order to fill an apt.

I wonder how much taxes are paid from that $0.00 in rent?

they can pick up and leave if they want...but a property owner can't pack up his building and go elsewhere.

BTW- I'm a landlord, and my tenant doesn't pay the taxes, I do.
My tenant pays to live in my upstairs apartment.