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

Oh, I see the problem. I did an analysis a few years ago on inflation adjusted per capita spending by government, and it was a hockey-stick chart. There was a HUGE (and understandable) spike during WWII, that subsided after the war was over, but we crossed that level in the 70's, and, at the time I did the analysis, it had gone up 4x or 5x over that. Keep in mind, it was an inflation adjusted per capita analysis, so it accounted for both inflation and population increase. And it ONLY addressed federal spending.

Our government spends WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY too much. A 90% cut would probably be a good start. But just a start.

 

heh I notice you dodged and deflected everything I said by simply quoting 4 words of a well thought out and destruction of the sales tax everyone clings to... and you instead spun into a whole new tangent to escape away the complete destruction of something you said is a solution... you know just like all the others do once I show them the facts and they can't stomach how wrong they were... and now you're telling me we could do away with 90% of the government... do you want to play the same game you just got done playing and lost in a flaming fashion? show me which 90% of the government you would cut now since you cited 90% as a figure... show me what we eliminate in your solution... lol I can't even begin to wonder how much garbage you're going to come up with now to cover these poop tracks you laid...

 

I may try to redo the analysis in the not too distant future. It was at least 8 years ago that I did it. But if you want to cut government spending, inflation adjusted, per capita, by 90% you only need to go back to the early 70's or so.

Are you seriously endorsing the idea that people should only own their property as long as they can afford the "rent" demanded by the State?

 

We here in WA have no income tax.

So, all revenue comes from property tax, sales tax and taxes and fees attached to specific features.

So, our transportation gets supported by revenue from taxes and fees related to vehicles - including gas tax and car tab fees. Of course, we also charge for use of bus, rail, air, etc. - stuff not owned by individuals.

Other states pay for transportation infrastructure through other means. For example, some states have no gas tax, but they still build roads - so the revenue for those roads is raised by other means.

The overarching idea is to charge users. Raising property tax or sales tax to pay for roads is not attractive to us.

We went through a period of thinking it was better to charge a once per year registration fee rather than increase gas tax. That's not a matter of abuse - it's a matter of determining the best way of distributing the cost of transportation infrastructure. But, we decided that was unfairly weighting toward those who simply own a car, regardless of how much they drive. So, we changed that. We could go farther into the relative merits of charging more gas tax (which is a somewhat regressive tax and isn't easy to record), the ability to write off certain expenses from federal taxes if you live in a state that doesn't have income tax, etc., etc.

 

yes you go back and use your wizard of oz mathematics and eliminate 90% of the government... and once you realize your pretend math and real math don't actually work together, get back to me with the long list of what you're going to cut in the government... newsflash, you're not going to get rid of 90% of government spending without completely eliminating social security among every other form of safety net in this country, and even then you're still going to have to hack away at almost everything, including the entire military... do you even know what america spends per year as a national budget to make a gross claim like 90% is wasted or can be cut??

anyhow I will await your answer, which will never happen, because you clearly have been filled with nothing but garbage rhetoric after garbage rhetoric which I have easily displayed that when we run the numbers, the entire premise and "facts" you're giving me, couldn't possibly be more wrong, and you've got literally nothing yet again...

P.S. you seem to be struggling with this notion of property taxes severely, and you seem to think that people will keep their property if they don't pay income taxes... and we all know the IRS will seize property and assets from folks for non-payment... you do realize the IRS seizes property and assets EVERY single year right? so this premise you keep spewing that they would not be able to afford the "rent" and would lose their property, newsflash, when they can't afford the "rent" from their income taxes, they can lose their property and everything else as well... there is little the IRS can't do when it comes to collecting taxes... you'll lose your home if you can't afford "taxes" period... so what difference does it make which method is the cause of the loss? you realize there are MORE programs to help people who can't afford property taxes, than people who can't afford income taxes and the like... so not only is there MORE support with my method, its cheaper for the lower incomes anyhow... so cost of living goes down, more assistance with property taxes, and less overall waste and corruption by the government... and here you are, fighting every step of it with rhetoric and a clear misunderstanding of reality because you can't choke down your ideas have been thoroughly destroyed numerous times over now... you have NOTHING but your only pretend thoughts I keep dismantling at every premise you bring up... maybe read some books before you mouth off about something

 

You are missing my point entirely. In fiscal 2015, the US Federal Government spent $10,293 for every man, woman, and child in the country. That means if you're married, and have 2 kids, your families share of federal (and JUST federal) spending is $41,175. There was a point in time, in our lifetimes if you're anywhere near my age that they spent a tiny fraction of that amount per person. In fact, that amount is 99% of the median income of a family of 4. That is simply unsustainable, even more so when you consider the fact that it's only going to keep growing.

You (generic) can avoid income taxes by not having income. My mother spent the last 25 years of her life (plus or minus) with no income save interest and investments. Turns out she had a much higher net worth than I thought, and with my share of the inheritance I was able to pay cash for a home sans mortgage, albeit a fixer upper that is more than a decade older than I am. Fast forward 40 years from now, I might be facing an annual property tax bill that is 10-15% the price I paid for the home in 2016. I am completely opposed to variable value-based property taxes, at least for owner occupied residences. Nobody, but especially a senior citizen on a "fixed income", should be faced with the financial necessity of being deprived of their home that they've owned for decades because it's hypothetical, but unrealized, value creates an unreasonable tax burden.

 

I notice you partial quoted my message again, trying to twist and turn the context to something you can argue, while ignoring the point I made... so lets try again... you show me, since YOU cited the number, what 90% of government do you plan to cut since YOU said it could be done and suggested we would be better off... cut away... prove it... don't just spew rhetoric then tell me I have to listen and accept it because its what you want to say, versus what you can prove would make us better off... show me the math...

 

Find a copy of the 1970 budget, dust it off, index it for inflation and population growth. Boom. Done.

 

so once again I notice you're not citing factual numbers, you just want me to assume your 1970 number is accurate...

 

Actually, I'd like to revise my statement. I'd prefer we go back to the 1948 budget, which is the lowest per capita spending of the federal government since before WWII.

 

thanks for posting your chart, you just demonstrated you did in fact lie with your 90% reduction in 1970 number... even if you go back to 1948 its still not a 90% reduction... and please don't try to say, well we have to adjust the dollars for inflation, turn your head sideways and look at your chart again, it DOES adjust for inflation...

P.S. see why I challenge people like you, you are all lies and short on truths... your own data proves you lied... liar liar pants on fire... make up some more lies to believe...

 

I realize that. But it does reflect an inflation adjusted near 80% reduction. 80% is not 90%, but that's splitting hairs. If it was good enough for 1948, it's good enough for 2016. And beyond. And if you go back before WWII, which my personal analysis did, you'll see that it was 90% (and more) less than what the feds are spending today. We've been spending at and well above WWII levels since the Reagan administration. That's disgusting.

 

And only Ike, Kennedy (who was only in office for 2 years), and H.W. Bush have had nominal decreases, and even those were hardly substantial.

 

lol at you... "I realize that I was probably wrong but didn't want to acknowledge that I actually had no clue and was just making things up because I wanted you to be wrong so bad that I never bothered to learn what the facts were, so I changed my facts until I could come up with some date near the ballpark of what I stated to win"...

you were SOOOOOO certain I was the idiot for not believing the crap you spewed... and you refused to prove your point, because you were SOOOOOO much smarter...

I know, why don't you go find another chart, and hunt your way back to the 1800's until you are right, so you won't be wrong... MAYBE you can say you meant 1870 and it was all a typo when you said 1970... you know what, I bet if you go back to 1870, maybe you can be right, why don't you go look it up and see if you can use that excuse...

P.S. since you want to go back to the 1940's so bad, do you want to tell blacks not to vote on tuesday, since you prefer the 1940's literacy tests? hahaha I know thats a cheap shot, and a stupid thing to say, but thats essentially your logic... so many things have changed since the 1940's and those prior years until we get the numbers you like, so unless you want to walk back a LOT of things that changed as a result of those changing numbers, you can't refute your logic is insanely flawed...

 

I am correct.

No they weren't. CA had significantly more delinquencies and especially foreclosures (see YOUR OWN GRAPH), but far more important than that, the CA homeowners OWED far more money than the Illinois homeowners. They therefore lost far more, because their mortgages were far bigger. Their mortgages were far bigger because their land values were far higher. Their land values were far higher because their property tax rates were far lower, and their property tax rates were far lower because of Proposition 13. Illinois homeowners were relatively unscathed because fewer went through foreclosure, but even more because they didn't owe very much money. In CA, they lost everything they had. If you can find a willingness to know the relevant facts, it all fits together.

There certainly is. All land value is a subsidy to the landowner. Land value is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of the net present value of the future subsidy to the landowner.

Yes it is, and will. All the money government spends on desirable services and infrastructure is shared out among the landowners in proportion to the value of their landholdings. They pocket that subsidy as it comes in, by either utilizing the services and infrastructure or charging someone else rent for them, and they will also pocket the future subsidy in a lump sum when they sell the land.

Which is a derisory fraction of what they are taking from government and the community, as proved, repeat, PROVED by the value of their land.

Do you really claim that when a thug relieves me of my wallet and $100, but gives me back $10 to pay for a cab home, he hasn't taken anything from me? REALLY???? Because that's how much landowners typically pay back out of what they are given.

You failed.

What do you mean, "cashed in"? Do you think if government gives your parents a bag of diamonds worth $1M, they haven't received a subsidy as long as they don't sell the ice? Don't be so ridiculous and disingenuous.

The subsidy your parents are pocketing is one of the main reasons people can't find jobs, and seek to escape their despair through intoxication.

But much more up than down, as you know perfectly well.

The community is providing the subsidy to the landowner. The market just estimates the future value of that subsidy, and prices the land accordingly. For a myriad of reasons, the market may think it is not worth as much today as a year ago, or it may think it is worth double. Often it is the whole market that goes up and down like that, because the relationship between the discount rate and the rate of increase in the subsidy affects net present value. Sometimes, the community will make decisions that affect certain land differently than the whole market: a zoning change, an infrastructure project, even a change in bus service, etc. And certainly changes in property taxes.

But the land value tells the truth.

Yes they are. They are using land they can't afford to pay for.

The land isn't, and never can be.

They can live just as conservatively in a location better suited to their needs and means.

 

Then the county needs to take action to increase the income of the residents, don't they? Like maybe less regulation and taxes on business, which would bring in more job growth. That's called an incentive. Without it, government has no accountability and simply 'spends their budgets up because they might not get as much of a budget if they don't' mentality. This is how they waste money, then whine about not having enough, then steal more from the people to compensate for their inefficiency.

 

Only a true fool claims increasing wages does not increase prices.

Explain any possible way raising wages helps anyone on fixed income, on disability, living on social security, living on unemployment benefits or living on fixed disability?

Many white "progressives" seemingly really just want the poor to go away or die. This also is how so-called "progressive" cities like Seattle keep themselves so white.

 

My parent's property is not the governments or the community. It is their property.

They do not and never have received any subsidies. They live a very conservative and frugal life.

The property they live on doesn't take any more city/county/state resources to manage than it did when they first moved in.

The problem is that the greedy public sector union thugs in the city/county/state government keep getting ever more bloated with their outrageous salaries/bonuses/pensions.

The bloated greedy fat public sector union employees need to stop whining and live within their means instead living like fat cats and expecting more from us hardworking private sector people.

Cut the head off the beast and drain the swamp!

 

Yes, I say that. Anyone who wants financial security in the west, can have it.

 

So you feel that assets ought to be evaluated (for tax purposes) for emotional attachment? Seriously?

Meantime, why do you refer to your house being 'a decade older' than you as a negative, above? Older houses are more valuable than new houses, so surely it's an advantage? Unless things are different where you live.

 

Progs never live in genuine diversity. They hate those places, and condemn them for their 'uneducated' and poor.

Diversity is only cool if it's related to sex. Though they will pretend to embrace educated brown people. Heck, they'll even live close to small pockets of brownness, because it allows them to signal their virtue more emphatically.

 

Living wage means people can buy stuff. It stimulates our economy. It takes people off the support roll.

I agree that we have to be careful of those on fixed income, but around here the larger problem for them has to do with the advancing incomes of the high end. Property/property tax/rent all rise - a far bigger hit than inflation. Also, rising incomes of the wealthy already has significant affect on inflation - more of an influence than a few dollars to those at the bottom.

Also, remember that regardless of inflation, the lack of buying power at the low end means products for that demographic will be less available.



You can't say that Trump or Ryan care about the poor. There is nothing in their policy that considers the existence of those at the bottom end.

 

Churches are the same way. They step over the poor and needy here, while giving money to 'migrants' and scolding people for not welcoming rapeugees into their communities.

 

You could say your statement isn't false, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you own a home, you should be able to OWN a home. A perpetual, ever increasing, non-optional rent paid to the state to keep "your" property is immoral.

My home is built like a tank. To pass inspection, I had to replace the shingles and a few rotten planks on the flat roofs above the front porch and back garage (even though we don't use it as a garage and it's now completely fenced in). The inspector said it looked like the main roof had been replaced without a permit being filed because it was clearly much newer than the last permit and in great shape. Overall it was in poor shape because the prior owners abandoned it, and rented it to anyone with a pulse until they could be foreclosed.

The AC had been stolen (we're assuming by a former renter, but that's an assumption), so we needed a brand new one, and we had to remove a chain link fence that went around the whole house, front and back, and put in a new privacy fence around the back yard only. Turns out whoever had the chainlink installed didn't go all the way to the property line, so we almost got free bonus land, and the back yard is much larger than we originally thought.

The interior was disgusting. Roach droppings over virtually every square inch of every surface. Fortunately it had been vacant long enough with no food available, the roaches themselves moved on to greener pastures. We had to repaint the interior, redo the flooring, repair and repaint the cabinet tops, though the cabinets themselves, aside from being filthy, were in remarkably good condition, compared to everything else.

Everything in the bathroom has been replaced except the original cast iron tub which, when the time comes is going to be a serious pain.

I'll stop, I think you get the idea, except to add one note that is just strange. There was an alarm system installed in the home. When, and by whom, obviously I can't know. But every single door, including all interior doors, had a sensor. (Though the door on the master BR was gone.)

So, it's likely it's fundamental skeletal structure is stronger than more modern homes. But it's basically complete rebuild. I'm not complaining, obviously we knew that going in, but had we bought a newer home we wouldn't have had to deal with that.

 

I repeat what I've said earlier. How can one single asset be given an exemption from the usual pressures of ownership .... based on 'feelings'? There is no practicable way of policing such a thing, anyway. Who decides when and if a home meets the criteria? And what IS the criteria? What if you bought your 'family home' 3 months ago? Are you still exempt? And how do you stop people simply calling it home to avoid taxes?

Meantime, your house just sounds run down (as tenanted properties almost always are). It's still worth more than a new home, surely? Here, even empty shells will attract huge sums if they are intact old homes. By intact I mean of course, without having been monstered by some halfwit attempting to 'modernise'. If all original features are present (fireplaces, fire surrounds, skirting boards, ornate ceilings, original timber windows, original floor boards, etc etc) the house will always be highly prized, regardless of its condition.

I was curious about your comments on 'permits' etc. Why would any governing body know what is and isn't 'legal' in or on a property just because it's been sold/bought? That doesn't happen here, so I'm confused. Here, the governing bodies are not involved and no govt inspections are carried out. Inspections are via private companies (and don't involve the legality of the building, only the structural condition), and are optional. Not every buyer feels the need to have inspections done.