Face it: Property taxes are forcing Illinoisans out of their homes

This is a ridiculous way of looking at the problems such as this. We can also claim that regardless of what we do there will be traffic accidents, so we shouldn't do anything about traffic safety.

We're always going to be working on problems of Americans (and others, too) surviving. That doesn't suggest we should start allowing them to die.

 

If you choose NOT to invest your money in your own property, you can't blame 'the system' when it doesn't pan out in your favour.

 

I know nothing of "Obamacare", I'm not American. Healthcare is free in most of the western world. Education is free in most of the western world. There are no excuses.

I personally know people who arrived in the west as refugees with literally not a cent to their names - and not even able to speak the language. Yet they've managed to buy property and get their kids educated. Some have gone considerably further, and are now wealthy. There are no excuses. If you live in the western world, you have to choose poverty.

 

Of course it's a choice. Are you telling me that the new migrant (for example) with zero money, who takes any work he can find, and works two or three jobs, while living in the cheapest accommodation he can find, and spends not a single cent on things like alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, gambling, fashion, holidays, big tv, big car, etc, and saves every cent he can for 10 years, isn't going to end up somewhere VERY different to the guy who decides he'll only work certain jobs, and then only one job at a time, spends his cash on 'good living', and doesn't save a cent for those ten years?

That first guy, while saving for a down payment on a property, also managed to get his kids educated in the public system (by not ignoring them) to Ivy League college standard. Meantime, the other guy has ignored his kids in favour of watching tv, so they have far fewer options for getting out of the poverty their parents chose.

 

It's not a matter of "blaming the system".

The issue has to do with how to best address homelessness and decreasing diversity, perhaps economic diversity especially.

We can identify causes without their being some charge of "blame". Blame suggests we attack that which is blamed, because of that assignment of responsibility. But, in many cases the cause isn't something that deserves some sort of direct attack.

For example, our rent and real estate prices are rising pretty rapidly because (we think) of the number of high tech and other well paid employment opportunities coming here. Does that mean Amazon or Microsoft or Paul Allen's medical research direction should be "blamed"? Obviously not. Those are assets. Suggesting they are to "blame" doesn't make any sense, even though we may need to be taking action to mitigate the problems related to rising property prices.

 

When resources are finite (as they in fact, are), there MUST be parameters to their use. Reason and equity must enter into the mix, else we'll see young people denied hip replacements while old people with limited life get them. What sort of world would that be?

We're socialists for a reason, and that reason is finite resources.

 

Well, the catch here is that they can work as hard as they want and still find it impossible to create a savings account that is in any way meaningful.

And, these people are all close enough to the edge that simple life challenges can push them over the edge - wiping out any ability to be independent.

Let's remember that before Obamacare the highest cause of bankruptcy was health care.

Support of family members who have limited mental capacity, have a child that needs constant special attention, etc., removes people from the job market.

An apartment building going condo can leave the previous occupants needing to cough up first, last and cleaning deposit in a rapidly rising housing market.

Minimum wage is typically too low to stay alive, and government support is not set to support people saving money.

Etc.

 

1) Homelessness is a choice in the west. You can't 'fix' free choice. The best address is to acknowledge that some people are so dysfunctional that they can't even keep a residence, much less a family. They get exactly the same benefits as anyone else in need, not more. They should have access to free psychiatric care, also, just like everyone else (in the west, but possibly not in America?). We have people in genuine need (not need of their own making) in the world, and these must came first, always. Any society which starts 'helping' people who choose homelessness etc, has lost the plot.

2) What does blame have to do with any of this? We are a planet of finite resources. We have no choice but to prioritise help. The people at the end of the queue must be those who choose failure. The head of the queue is crowded with people who would, if they could, choose anything BUT failure. Genuine need, in other words, not the vain dabblings in mercy we see when people get too rich and too isolated from the business of survival.

3) There are no 'problems' arising from increased property prices. Unless you happen to have chosen a lifestyle not conducive to property ownership. But then, if you've chosen it, it's obviously not a problem for you. Unless ... you chose it without thinking ahead (like a child chooses chocolate ice cream for breakfast), and now don't like the consequences.

 

The problem is far broader than your premise suggests. I'm sure there are those who aren't working as hard as they "should". But, that isn't a legitimate excuse for ignoring this problem that affects far more than that.

The "welfare mother in a Cadillac" thing is nonsense.

 

These are all excuses. I know people earning minimum wage who own multiple properties. The only possible exception would be disability and/or the need to care for someone with a disability. But even the latter is still something of an excuse. Full carer's benefit is enough to save money on if you're determined. Just like unemployment benefits. I personally know an aged pensioner who saved $120k in 12 years. She used almost no electricity, got rid of her car (pensioners get free public transport), took no holidays, bought nothing new, never ate out, and grew her own vegetables in window boxes in the tiny apartment she shared with two others in a very low rent area. With that money she was able to buy herself a very nice little retirement villa in a coastal area, where she's now living out her remaining years rent and mortgage free (she pays only a yearly levy for grounds and maintenance etc). If she can do that on the equivalent to unemployment benefits, there really are no excuses.

 

The welfare mother 'in a Cadillac' is exactly the problem. People with very little money don't LIVE as though they have very little money. They live as though they're financially secure. If you are on a low wage or benefits, you have no business spending a cent unless it's absolutely necessary. EVERY SINGLE cent you spend that isn't bare survival is money you could have put towards financial security. That means anything that can remotely be considered a luxury item. iPhone, computers, internet, car, new clothing, new furniture, appliances, holidays, restaurants, entertainment, processed foods, electricity, etc etc.

 

Explain then, how the penniless refugee can arrive in the west, work minimum wage, and still save for a down-payment?

 

The issue isn't whether it is possible.

Lots of things are possible. Winning the lottery is possible. Staying perfectly healthy is possible. Finding an incredibly cheap apartment is possible. Being brilliant is possible. Having wealthy parents is possible.

"Possible" isn't the issue.

 

Death panels.

 

I like the work you are doing here, but a home is not merely an investment for income, it is an investment in so much more of us. It is an investment in our sense of security, and our stability, our memories and in a hundred small dreams and little hopes. This is our modern cave where we protect our brood, and feed our bonds. We persevere largely because we have a place to stand our ground against so many trials, so many woes and threats.

It is also an investment for our communities, High Home ownership rates in a town or suburb correlates with stable employment, lower crime, lower divorce rates, higher literacy and education achievement, and better health care.

I argue that the emotional choice you see as an individual weakness, is as worthy of our respect and our social and economic nurture collectively, as that economic gain and stimulus from more detached decision-making. You have successfully argued that a sense of entitlement to remain in the family home is misplaced and that these are supposed to be hard and clear eyed economic decisions we look at periodically rather than blame the tax guy . You have not convinced me that states and cities should not look towards ways to keep generations invested in their place, their past, and their neighborhood. Maybe we should look more creatively at ways that government can keep people in their homes even if they do not 'deserve' to. it could be better business than you first calculate - for governments and the rest of us.
We just need very long social lense to see past those initial economic numbers.

Roots are not fundamentally about feeding the trees. they are about the preserving the quality of the soil the entire ecosystem depends on. Even the decaying and decomposing roots serve a vital function long after the branches have died.

 

you mention that this is our cave, our sense of security, so since you cited cavemen, I would like to cite the countless migratory populations that uprooted on a seasonal basis, if not once the resources were drained or moving themselves and they must follow the resources as an argument to offset your single dwelling ideal... if these early tribes and populations did not follow the seasonal migration or move along with the resources they needed to live, they would have died off long ago because the land they were living on, and the abilities they had, would not successfully sustain themselves year round, they HAD to move because thats the land they were willing on... so this is a modern day case of the ability to sustain yourself on the land is only as good as your resources and abilities to make use of that land, there is nothing wrong with being migratory, ask a senior, how many of them migrate during retirement to "better lands" that have more resources favorable to them... heh...

if cities and states want to attempt to ensure that once you step foot on land you never have to leave it, the entire country will need to rethink and modify the current system, as almost every state in this country depends on property taxes, and without them, an entire new source of revenue will be required, we can't simply cut back on spending and call it an efficiency creation, there is not that much efficiency we could realize when you look at actual budgets of cities and towns that depend almost exclusively on property taxes as their primary source of revenue... unless we're willing to dramatically change the income tax system and reward cities with your income taxes, you will not be able to escape property taxes in most scenarios...

the real problem however, is most communities don't have the wealthy population to essentially offset the poor population that generate little property taxes... many places depend on pockets of wealth to make up for the many pockets of lower value, but they are most beneficial when its a sustained and moderated wealth in the middle class... so we want the same things, we want a moderated wealth, we want a sustained property value, not a dramatic rise and fall... which is why I advocate the most for property taxes as the ONLY source of taxes... this will force our entire approach to housing to change, it will greatly moderate the rise and fall of home values, giving us that sustained moderated cost that won't swing fast or far...

but there will always remain instances where it does... and in this scenario, there are two choices, you add an immense amount of complexity to the system to account for the countless variances you will have with an individual household rather than a single system... you will need a lot more oversight a lot more people and a lot more expense to this simplistic system thats easy to administer, view as essentially creating IRS 2.0 which we can all agree IRS 1.0 is a complete and utter failure yes? I'm not suggesting the emotional toll is not sad, its sad when you realize you get priced out of your home, but thats only ONE side of the coin, people keep refusing to see the IMMENSE wealth this couple generated, the IMMENSE opportunity they now that, that few americans will ever be able to capitalize on... turn the quarter over... capitalize on the gains, there are other communities you can be just as happy living in, but with an extra $500,000 TAX FREE hanging out of your pocket...

transplant this analogy tree of yours, it can still grow, it can still prosper, today we are no longer rooted where we were planted, if we were, many of us would die out before we ever became large trees... don't kill the sapling inside you because you're too stubborn to allow transplanting yourself... I see this ALL the time in economies around this country... people who have skills, that are in high demand someplace else, and they refuse to leave their town, to grab that opportunity, they live a far lesser life than they could, because they were emotional, and afraid to leave the small town... don't be afraid to leave the small town for the big city, you can always return later on in life, but don't let that fear cripple your opportunity to experience a more rewarding life because you wanted to just plant a seed and never uproot...

P.S, but like I said, to everyone, who continues to challenge me, but offers no alternative, show me your plan, give me the numbers, lets work them out... if you can succeed in providing me an alternative, that doesn't ultimately cost folks more money than pocketing the profit and walking away, I AM ALL EARS... but as we've seen, not a single person has been able to support their solution, they've all fallen apart within seconds of application... so whats your solution to replace the revenue fairly that won't end up slapping these people across the face once they turn around and say we're staying... you can't just tell me the emotion, you can't just say, we'll figure it out, or we should find a solution... WHAT IS THE SOLUTION... don't just keep feeding me analogies and emotion and convincing me they should stay... I want them to stay if they can afford to stay, but if they can't, they need someone to step in and give them the economic advice, not the hug and kiss to make the owie feel better...

 

I believe Pinketty suggested a solution to this problem by taxing wealth, all forms of wealth and a very steep inheritance tax regime. The problem with taxing incomes or property or commercial activity is that wealth and income and commercial activity are not smooth across a population. Wealth is lumpy, it sticks to people and easily grows once basic needs are met by the individual. If a society has to create revenues to pursue a goal, it must tax us enough to fund that goal or issue currency using the magic of fiat money (inflation in the gold era). Like the robber said, " I rob banks because that is where the money is". Fairness in tax policy is really the issue here. What is fair? Who gets to decide what is fair? We have political entities whose job it is to make that decision. As you said, fairness is a difficult thing to define and implement. Is a flat tax fair when it results in massive decreases in government funds? Is it fair to leave the expenses of running a city, state or nation alone and find a way to fund them via some other form of taxation? Tax whom exactly? If you make 10 grand a year and pay a flat tax of 20%, that leaves you 8 grand to live on. If you make one milllion, you get to live on 800 grand. Is that fair? The tax on the poor person amounts to a measly 2 grand. Does the rich person really think their life would be harmed if they only kept 798 grand? What is the marginal utility of 2 grand to the poor person compared to the millionaire? 2 grand to a person making 10 grand is life or death. It means nothing to the millionaire. That argument forms the basis for progressive taxation along with another goal of society, a desire not to create a gilded age or class as Europe had for centuries. We now have a class of people who have so much money that they cannot spend it. Their heirs will have a hard time spending it. Is that fair if by allowing that to happen the nation returns to the era before the 1940s where most of our ancestors were so poor they had virtually nothing and lived in despair? If you don't think that ever happened here, read your history.

 

once again, I notice you don't offer us an actual solution... just like everyone else who chimes in and attempts to tell me my method is wrong, yet they don't ever provide us details, they just spew the same tired old rhetoric like you do... look guys... its time to stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)footing around this, either cite cold hard facts what you would change and do, or stop trying to tell me I'm wrong when I'm the only one who's put forth a means tested idea that does what I claim it will do, and has held up to ensuring there is still revenue, while targeting the wealthy at a higher portion of the share of taxes, while creating an equal percent charged to all...

you mentioned a flat tax is wrong, I agree, its stupid when we apply it to income taxes... however a flat property tax, tied to assessed value, is the perfect method to create a divide between the wealthy and poor, and have things tip in the favor of the poor, and ding the wealthy... see the wealthy are't going to live in the cheap properties just to save a few bucks, they will continue to live in excess, while the poor will continue to live in the ghettos... so when we apply the same percentage, we end up with VASTLY different amounts applied... in the case of your poor bastard who only makes $10,000 a year he's only likely going to pay a couple hundred dollars in extra property taxes either through ownership or rental of his crappy living conditions... meanwhile the wealthy bastard making a million, will continue living in his fancy estate and home, and will end up paying tens of thousands and in some instances might reach well in excess of a hundred thousand dollars in taxes for his living conditions...

see this is why property taxes are ideal... those who make more, live better, and thats most reflected in society by property values... no other economic indicator tells us the likely incomes of people than the assessed value of neighborhoods, because generally it takes a certain income to reach certain neighborhoods, and if you can afford to live there, you can afford to pay more taxes as a result of living in that higher assessed value property... despite the fact we're charging the same percent, we end up taxing those with wealth more as a result of their living habits...

but this also provides upward mobility on the low end... it allows people to lag behind moving to nicer places, thereby creating more wealth and allowing them to meet not just more basic daily needs longer, but to save money to put towards other large items like homes or cars or heck saving money for investing in the market... you also end up keeping these people in the poorer communities longer, despite them obtaining more wealth, which means you create more spending in the areas that need it the most, which means more jobs, which means more wealth EXACTLY where you need it...

is nobody connecting the dots to see how this is a tremendous boom to the low and middle classes and it taxes the wealthy the most in a way they can't escape or fudge or benefit from elaborate tax returns... do none of you get it? NOTHING is more progressive than property taxes, because you likely live in what you can afford based on your income, so we can maximize that efficiency to tax people correctly at the same rate, despite it being immensely different levels of dollars...

I don't know... nobody here seem to want the couple to walk away with $500,000 TAX FREE in income... they seem to want to play sit-n-spin and nobody is offering real world dollar matching solutions in a proven way... all I get is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rhetoric from people... this is a complete waste of my time to repeat this so many times in so many threads where NOBODY has run the numbers to prove their methods better... while I have run my numbers countless times and proven it helps the poor and middle class...

this whole website is a waste...

 

That only matters if they decide to sell the property. If they just want to live there, say, for the rest of their lives, it's completely unreasonable to force them to sell and move, or lose their house due to unpaid, unaffordable taxes.

And I, in complete opposition to your pathetic ideas, think you're ideas are downright evil. Property taxes should not exist, at all, because it means you can never truly own your property, rather you're just renting it from the State. And if they must exist, they should be fixed at the value (I might be willing to begrudgingly index it to inflation, but you (or someone else) would have to make a very good case for that to get me on board) at the amount due at the point of purchase. It's completely unjust to drive elderly people out of their homes because the value has (hypothetically) increased since they bought the place 35 years ago enough to make the monthly tax payment more, even in inflation adjusted dollars, that their still as of yet unpaid mortgage.

 

Exactly true. We only rent with the illusion of ownership.
And planned that way, IMO.

 

so once again, whats YOUR solution, since all you want to do is tell me my idea is wrong, why don't you cite SPECIFIC facts and figures to prove you can generate the revenue for local communities to replace the lost revenue... or let me guess, this is where you spew rhetoric like everyone else has, and won't give me specifics, where we can run the numbers, because you've clearly never run the numbers, and likely have no clue what the numbers even are... so you have no solutions, you just want to hear yourself speak and spew your garbage without offering any solution to the issue... more rhetoric garbage with an "idea" and not a solution... those are two different words so you know, don't tell me your "idea" beats my solution, when you haven't explained how you replace all that lost revenue... and no, telling me you might index it to inflation isn't a replacement of that lost revenue, its not even close to being the same dollar amount, NOT EVEN CLOSE...

so ONCE AGAIN... another user who comments WITHOUT any real solution... with MY ADVICE they walk away with $500,000 TAX FREE, with you, nothing...

you too, read above, give us YOUR solution, and prove your numbers... show us your better method, like I've asked countless people in this and other threads to do... PROVE you have a better solution, rather than just continued garbage rhetoric like everyone else who spews it without ever running the numbers to demonstrate they truly have found a better method to the problem... (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dazzle me... have you ever looked at a county or city budget, and seen just how dependent almost every one in this nation is dependent on property taxes, show us how YOU would ensure they regain that lost revenue once you remove property taxes, (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dazzle me...

don't just tell me, I would add this tax or that tax... SHOW ME THE MATH... don't just tell me I have to believe its better or it'd work... SHOW ME... show me a budget for YOUR local city, show me how much income is derived from property taxes, then show me what tax you would add to make up for that lost revenue, than show me the dollars that apply to that method and tax stream, and lets run the numbers... show me you have more than just garbage rhetoric to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about... PROVE IT...

 

Glad you asked. Were I King, I would replace BOTH income and property taxes with a sales tax. A tax that is unavoidable unless you (not you you, the generic you) are making all purchases on the black market, which seem at best impossible, and at worst unlikely.

They only walk away with it tax-free if they reinvest it in a home within a set amount of time. A home that would be taxed just as much as their last home. Or, they can choose to buy a cheaper/smaller/(*)(*)(*)(*)tier home for less money, but pay income tax on the difference between what they sold for and what they paid.

A persons home, especially if they own it without debt, should never act as a ball and chain because the government wants more than their fair share.

 

lets tackle the $500,000 TAX FREE first... they do NOT have to reinvest it in another property... thats only for property in excess of the allowed capital gains exemption, married couples filing jointly can retain up to $500,000 in TAX FREE gains on a home they have lived in for the I believe its a mandatory 2 years before they can capitalize on this... so already you're a horrible financial adviser... (singles get a $250,000 exemption on capital gains from property)... (and since this was a married couple)

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701.html

there, enjoy a link direct from the IRS's mouth... TAX FREE idiot... no reinvestment needed...

now lets dive into your "solution" which I noticed, was short numbers again... why won't you tell us a SPECIFIC sales tax number? how much? 5% 10% 20% how much? you see how NONE of you ever cite specifics, because NONE of you even know what retail sales numbers are... go ahead, google them, then go google YOUR cities budget, then go google YOUR cities retail numbers... then run the math... and when you sit there listening to crickets because you just realized the numbers don't even come close to working out... you come back to me and apologize... but you don't do that, you'll just keep spewing more garbage rhetoric as if you've ever run the numbers...

(*)(*)(*)(*)ING RUN THE NUMBERS ON YOUR PLAN, CITE SPECIFICS, STOP TELLING ME I'M WRONG WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN DEMONSTRATE YOUR MATH...

 

me 2 what? I didn't say it was good or bad. But we don't really own it.
If one doesn't pay their property tax, the state takes it. No matter how long they owned it and how much taxes one has paid in the past.
So, it is really only rented.

And there are a plethora of other taxes that could be increased to offset the loss of property taxes.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/
Some states have very little property tax.