Stop the madness, end property taxes

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I know somebody is going to say, then you have to figure out how to pay for the things currently covered by property taxes. Of course that is true, but nobody should ever be able to lose their homes over not being able to pay property taxes. It is inherently wrong for somebody to be able to own the house on a pieces of land, but not be able to own the land itself. What is really maddening is the idea that you can "buy" a piece of land, and pay the property taxes on what the land is worth. You can then pay for permits in order to have the "privilege" to build on the land, pay for the material and labor to build the buildings, and THEN you get to pay more in property taxes because the improvements YOU paid for increased it in value.

Now if for some reason you are unable or don't pay property taxes, do you get back the money you put into it? No, you lose EVERYTHING...the land and the improvements that you had to pay to have done. No, I am not in the situation of losing my home due to not paying property taxes, but I can't be the only one who sees how wrong this is to do to people.

[Deleted]

what is your alternative tax base?

[Bluerobin]

I agree. Eliminate property taxes and replace them with an Earned Income Tax!!!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

As I said, of course that money will need to be made up elsewhere....probably through increases in sales and income tax, of some combination of other taxes.

[Deleted]

I don't know if I agree. I think it makes sense that if you own property in a town, you pay for the services provided by the town. I think the bigger issue is that the town is providing too many services.

[floridayankee]

Mar 15, 2011 9:35:03 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I don't know if I agree. I think it makes sense that if you own property in a town, you pay for the services provided by the town. I think the bigger issue is that the town is providing too many services.

Agreed...but then you run in to the issue of "fairness" which, with government involved, is rarely fair. When we purchased our property in '05, our value reset and we were paying more than double the property taxes for the exact same services as the comparable valued property (according to zillow and other such websites) next door.

[Bluerobin]

"fairness" can be achieved through user fees. For example, our town has a per bag garbage bag fee. The more you use the service, the more you pay. The ambulance bills you. We have to stop thinking property tax. Per capita or EIT taxes let the renters participate too!

[Deleted]

I think user fees works for certain charges, but not for all. I also think think that EIT would work, too, but property taxes are a lot easier for a town to keep track of. not that that should be a reason for a tax base, but it doesn't hurt.

[handyman2]

The issue with property taxes raises my ire. i live in a rural area and there are rural farms where the couple raised their children, farmed all their lives and were good citizens. Now they are in their 70's and 80's and live on a very limited income. The value of land has increased to the point that the family including the children cannot afford the taxes on the family farm so they are forced to sell at what ever price they can get. There is something wrong with this.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

You mean end the fuedal system where we never really own our homes and land, but continually pay rent to the King? Sign me up.

And before we start talking about replacing the revenue stream, let's be careful not to begin with the underlying presupposition being everything we're currently paying for is a vital function of local governments.

Anyway, the revenue would be easy enough to replace with a low, competitive sales tax.

The sad part is that the liberals are always talking about the divide between rich and poor, and the disappearing middle class. Home ownership has traditionally been the ticket to the middle class and beyond.

But a home, like vacations, and retirement- is something you EARN.

As usual, liberal politicians (in BOTH Parties) decided that being the case, they'd give away home loans. Now, people are losing their homes, fewer average people can qualify for a home loan, and responsible people who have been in their homes for years but can no longer afford skyrocketing property tax bills are adding their homes to the inventory.

The result is a predictable decent into banana republic America: The only people that can buy are the "rich" and they are buying up homes they're getting cheap due to the government created housing crash-- and renting them back to those who lost them. It's been a gift-- I know, I'm "rich" and on the buy side. The topic has come up among my peers that the only property owners that will be left after the dust settles are landlords. One community I'm in-- 70% of the residents are renting.

The government giveth, the government taketh away...

[Angel!]

Property taxes pay for local things like local roads, bridges, traffic signals, parks, libraries, schools, trails, sidewalks, sewers, etc. If you own property in an area, then you use at least some of these facilities. It seems fair to charge property owners for the infrastructure they uses. I can't think of a fairer way to tax people.

And the permit fees cover the cost to make sure the home is built to code. You may also have to pay building fees to help cover the costs of new road construction to the area. You may also have to pay a water tap fee if you are connecting to local water, which helps cover the cost of adding new lines to the area.

I can't think of a fairer way to do it while being able to maintain the facilities that we all have access to use.

[Deleted]

I don't disagree with property taxes. As a matter of fact I think we need them. The problem is that we the people are paying for everything we need PLUS all the extra's that our officials can think of (& they think of a LOT). The government spending that is (& has) been going on is crazy insane. Think about it, we are taxed on what we earn, what we spend, & also on what we have (like property). Then you add in all of the extra "fee's" that they can pile on top of that (like auto registration, drivers license, etc).
Those things all add up to a huge percentage of our income & it's all because we have more government than we need & more government spending than we can afford.
We are kind of a unique country in that our middle class is so large. That middle class bares the brunt of our taxes & always will. That's because we don't have enough rich people & what we consider "poor" is what a lot of countries would consider "middle class" (I know because I was in the poor category for a LOT of years & I was always able to buy a new car & live the lifestyle of what I thought of then as middle class). What we need is to rearrange how we look at spending & tax collection. Right now our taxes are based off of what our government "needs". We need to change that so that our government spending is based off of our taxes (& not keep raising taxes because of spending). Just my thoughts.

[fairlycrazy23]

You have two different issues I think which are related. First property tax in general , this is probably the 'best' local tax to fund local government, I generally favor sales tax but local communities are already having a difficult time with sales tax because of online buying and you may also be in a community that doesn't really have a large sales tax base. I hate income tax so that is not really an option.
The second issue is that we had run away real estate prices that were not related to true market forces, so I think there should be safe guards that protect owners so that there property taxes do not rise to fast, this protection would end when the property was sold, but not upon inheritance.

Third issue would be too much government spending.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 15, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Property taxes pay for local things like local roads, bridges, traffic signals, parks, libraries, schools, trails, sidewalks, sewers, etc. If you own property in an area, then you use at least some of these facilities. It seems fair to charge property owners for the infrastructure they uses. I can't think of a fairer way to tax people.

And the permit fees cover the cost to make sure the home is built to code. You may also have to pay building fees to help cover the costs of new road construction to the area. You may also have to pay a water tap fee if you are connecting to local water, which helps cover the cost of adding new lines to the area.

I can't think of a fairer way to do it while being able to maintain the facilities that we all have access to use.

ASSUMES (and we know what happens when we ASSUME) these things are NEEDED. Assumes ALL these things are needed. Assumes we could get the same things- or even more of the same things for LESS MONEY.

[973beachbum]

Mar 16, 2011 13:59:59 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mar 15, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Property taxes pay for local things like local roads, bridges, traffic signals, parks, libraries, schools, trails, sidewalks, sewers, etc. If you own property in an area, then you use at least some of these facilities. It seems fair to charge property owners for the infrastructure they uses. I can't think of a fairer way to tax people.

And the permit fees cover the cost to make sure the home is built to code. You may also have to pay building fees to help cover the costs of new road construction to the area. You may also have to pay a water tap fee if you are connecting to local water, which helps cover the cost of adding new lines to the area.

I can't think of a fairer way to do it while being able to maintain the facilities that we all have access to use.

ASSUMES (and we know what happens when we ASSUME) these things are NEEDED. Assumes ALL these things are needed. Assumes we could get the same things- or even more of the same things for LESS MONEY.

I live on a penninsula so no I don't assume I need a working bridge I know it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 16, 2011 14:12:19 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Mar 16, 2011 13:59:59 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

ASSUMES (and we know what happens when we ASSUME) these things are NEEDED. Assumes ALL these things are needed. Assumes we could get the same things- or even more of the same things for LESS MONEY.

I live on a penninsula so no I don't assume I need a working bridge I know it.

What you NEED is to read my post. Do you have a bridge now? How much does it cost to maintain said bridge, as well as budget or its eventual replacement (which I can GUARANTEE they are not doing right now)?

I'm saying there are other options such as maintaining the bridge for LESS money than they are currently spending. We don't need public employee union personnel; and we don't need a private contractor getting a no-bid contract.

You could live somewhere else.

The bridge could be sold to a private company. A bridge is a good / service. It is not a "right". Those that live on the Peninsula could pay a user fee for the bridge (pay a toll). You go to and fro a lot- you pay more. Work from home (like me), pay less.

My point is that the underlying assumptions are:

1. The NEEDS of the community- which I think could be re-assessed.

2. That current costs are fixed.

3. That the things that need to be done to meet the needs of the community- even post re-assessment- absolutely have to be done the way they are being done.

Examples are numerous- but a few obvious ones are trash collection. Chicago has a Department of Streets and Sanitation. The city runs it. Out in the burbs they have Waste Management.

Who do you think does a better job? Who do you think charges more money?

We can even privatize roads and bridges. It is being done, and not only does it work, but it is superior to the state run roads.

When it comes to property taxes, the biggest waste of money is the government run school monopoly. That could easily be privatized, and the costs would come down and the service would be superior.

[Angel!]

The bridge could be sold to a private company. A bridge is a good / service. It is not a "right". Those that live on the Peninsula could pay a user fee for the bridge (pay a toll). You go to and fro a lot- you pay more. Work from home (like me), pay less.

Your right, this would be a good idea. A good, easy way to implement this for all roads would be to attach recorders to cars so we can all pay for exactly what we use & the wear & tear we cause on the roads. Then we wouldn't need to pay property taxes for roads.

Oh wait - you thought that was a horrible idea.

[straydog]

quote author=palmbeachpaul

When it comes to property taxes, the biggest waste of money is the government run school monopoly. That could easily be privatized, and the costs would come down and the service would be superior.

PBP, you took the thought right out of my head. Today in my local newspaper there was a letter to the editor about a supreme court decision in 1982: Plyer vs Doe, that determined that the constitution makes no mention of education.

Counties or towns should therefore be allowed to opt-out of the public education system and then set up private/charter schools, determining the correct amount of staff that is needed to run an efficient school.

In the late 90's I worked for Best Buy. Whenever they hired someone, they negotiated the salary based on past experience, product knowledge, and other factors. Once you agreed on a salary, and they hired you, one of the rules was that you were forbidden to tell any other associate what you made-doing so could get you fired.

They could hire teachers using the same criteria. Salary based on experience, past performance, and other factors. And of course, no more million dollar pensions. 401Ks just like everyone else. The teacher could just transfer it if they decide to move on.

The only problem I see is that if some county executive or mayor tried to do this, I suspect that the unions would probably hire a private investigator to dig up as much dirt on that politician as possible. After all, millions and millions of dollars in union dues would be at risk-seen that new commercial about our president and the unions?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 16, 2011 17:28:07 GMT -5 Angel! said:

The bridge could be sold to a private company. A bridge is a good / service. It is not a "right". Those that live on the Peninsula could pay a user fee for the bridge (pay a toll). You go to and fro a lot- you pay more. Work from home (like me), pay less.

Your right, this would be a good idea. A good, easy way to implement this for all roads would be to attach recorders to cars so we can all pay for exactly what we use & the wear & tear we cause on the roads. Then we wouldn't need to pay property taxes for roads.

Oh wait - you thought that was a horrible idea.

Um, yeah- if you're talking about the NC idea to tax people for pulling into and out of their driveways.

Per mile isn't a terrible idea, but the problem becomes privacy-- government tracking of movement doesn't excite me.

However, paying a toll to cross a bridge, or use a stretch of road is a time-tested, and a true user fee.

An even better idea is private sponsorship. Maybe instead of naming roads after JFK and Ronald Reagan, we could have the IBM corridor, or the Best Buy Bridge...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oh, and another thing Angel D-- that tax was "in addition to", not "instead of". We're not going to get fooled into that-- we eliminate property taxes FIRST (by State Constitutional Amendment) and THEN we switch to a user fee.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 17, 2011 8:56:02 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oh, and another thing Angel D-- that tax was "in addition to", not "instead of". We're not going to get fooled into that-- we eliminate property taxes FIRST (by State Constitutional Amendment) and THEN we switch to a user fee.

Good catch

[billisonboard]

... the constitution makes no mention of education.

...

Does in the State of Washington:

ARTICLE IX
EDUCATION

SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

SECTION 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.

www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx

[straydog]

Bill:
Does in the State of Washington:

SD: I meant the U.S. constitution. But I am also a believer in states rights.

[safeharbor37]

There is a reason for property taxes which I don't believe has been mentioned: Property taxes help to prevent monopolization of property by the very rich. There is really no practical way to force an entity to sell property [excluding imminent domain] so it's entirely possible for a few big land owners to gain control of property, fix prices for it and control whatever development is allowed.
I once lived in a rural county [which has since become a bedroom community for a large adjacent metropolitan area] where over half the land in the county belonged to large corporations . They maintained the property by declaring it "undeveloped" [which they could do for only a limited period of time], then, when the time limit approached, selling the property to one of the other corporations and buying their property at low prices to limit taxes and keep the "undeveloped" status. It's similar to the way some use "agricultural" zoning except that there is no time limit on "Agricultural" zoning.
Population pressure forced the corporations to sell much of their property [at huge profits]. It isn't a perfect system and the "Golden Rule" applies [Those who have the gold make the rules].
Homestead exemptions make some allowance for homeowners who might otherwise be forced out of their homes, but any law is going to benefit some at the expense of others so the effect is unequal.
An example I've seen is Key West; once upon a time home of fishermen, beach bums, dope smugglers, etc. which, because of the development opportunities forced the natives [Conchs] to leave by means of increasing property values [and the attending property taxes] so that there are today [with possible exceptions] no [human] Conchs left there at all. In other words, land taxes forced progress by pricing out the natives [those who could resist the temptation of big money offers for their properties]. There are Conch Conventions and other meetings where former Key Westers meet and commensurate over the loss of their heritage so it's not all sunshine and roses.
Another example from the former example: A ferry existed for years after a nearby bridge was constructed over a river. The bridge was for what had become a Federal Highway, so you know who paid for most of the construction, along with the State. Eventually the ferry, not being used a lot except for farm produce and occasional automobiles ~ and increasing maintenance and liability insurance costs, was forced to close. Kind of sad as it was a few miles closer for some and had a kind of timeless charm, but progress waits for no one.
Anyway; Property taxes could be improved, but they serve many useful purposes. Sometimes property owners can be "assessed" for improvements such as road improvement or construction, sewage and/or water service and/or other improvements or services which may [allegedly] benefit some more than others. I've known people driven off their property by paving assessments which exceeded the value of their property ~ but the street got paved.
Local property taxes are one of the better means of taxation.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Mar 19, 2011 14:08:13 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

YOu can rail all you want. But once the govt deep sixes your pocket, they will never get out. And, it is a means to destroy the cornerstone of real democracy which is private property ownership which apparently is a concept too difficult for most of the fugly Americans to understand nowadays.

And there is no refund for all the improvements you've made to the land when the government takes it back. You don't pay your $2k, or whatever in property taxes, they governments gets a piece of land worth much, much more.