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

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by MolonLabe2009, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not proposing "special deals on a as of yet undefined criteria", I'm talking about a total elimination of property taxes, at least for owner occupied residences, starting the day they move in, and ending the day they move out or pass away.

    I don't think it's as old as what you're describing. There are no fireplaces, skirting boards or ornate ceilings. I don't think the windows are original, and while replacing them is on the list, it's a long list.

    Certain repairs or upgrades require permits from the County. That's primarily as yet another revenue tool, but I'll concede it does offer some consumer protection from shoddy workmanship or unlicensed contractors. Depending on the job there is only a permit to start, other more complicated things require a sign-off from a County inspector before they are considered complete. As for the roof, perhaps the owner, back at a time when he still cared about this place did it himself without a permit, and happened to do a good job. Perhaps he hired an unlicensed contractor and got lucky that they did a good job. No way to know.

    I don't have a mortgage, so there is no requirement that I have insurance (mortgage companies require it, but the government doesn't care). However, because I put almost every cent I own into the house and repairs/upgrades, and can't afford to rebuild if it burns down, I have insurance voluntarily. Insurance company has inspection requirements (that's why we had to redo the flat roofs) that must be met before they'll issue a policy.
     
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't get over the idea that 'nothing is free', therefore, if you force a scenario which increases labor costs by 40-50%, where will all this money come from? Will you take it from profits? Will you demand the prices of goods and services be increased? Are you worried about the US competing in the global market place? See any inflation issues?

    Think about increasing costs by 40-50% but increasing productivity by 0%...where is the logic in this scenario...
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even the lowest paid workers are getting that kin of increase.

    It will also reduce the load on taxes for support.

    It will stimulate the economy, because those kn that bracket spend their full income.

    And, the number of workers in that bracket don't make up a significant % of the total cost of labor.

    So, overall this can be a win for all of us.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Mah (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)hs ain't the gubmint's prop'ty nor the c'munity's. They's MAH prop'ty."

    It is no more possible rightly to own land than it is to own people.
    That is simply incorrect as a matter of objective physical fact. The entire increase in the value of their land since they bought it is a subsidy given to them by government and the community.
    So did lots of slave owners. Do you think that justified slavery?
    So what? They are nevertheless getting the benefit of a LOT more city/state/county and federal resources than when they moved in.
    No, the problem is that even the greedy public sector union thugs take from the community but a tiny fraction of what landowners take.
    Hardworking private sector people? What hardworking private sector people? The increase in your parents' land value would have been exactly the same if they had never done a lick of work in their lives, so it's absurd as well as disingenuous to attribute it to any hard work on their part.
    LOL! What do you think would happen to your parents' land value if all those greedy public sector union thugs suddenly disappeared, hmmmmmmmm?

    "The time to buy is when blood is running in the streets." -- Baron Rothschild
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the guy who buys a place, moves in for a month while renovating, then sells, is as exempt as the elderly couple who bought their family home 40 years ago? Even when that first guy immediately buys another property to do the same thing? And again when that second property sells? And so on with every one of his income producing properties?

    This is getting very silly :smile:
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you want to increase the subsidy to landowning, and the cost of housing, even more? We already saw what happened in CA when they cut property taxes in half and then relentlessly pressed them lower and lower as a fraction of public revenue: prices soared, rents soared, public services and infrastructure crumbled, and landowners got fabulously rich without lifting a finger. WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT EVEN WORSE? WHY DO YOU PREFER INJUSTICE OVER JUSTICE?
     
  7. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's your objections that are getting silly. A guy who avoids property taxes by living in the homes he's flipping every 30 days is paying many times the amount in government fees for transferring the property twice in 30 days than the property tax would ever be. We paid something like $700 for a "recording fee", which required a County employee to scan in the counter-signed and notarized deed onto a hard drive, requiring about 90 seconds of employee time and about $0.0000005 worth of hard drive space.

    And that's just one example.
     
  8. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CA??? Don't even. Injustice is having to continue to pay for a property you allegedly own.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's most certainly not, when the value of that property depends on someone else being forced to pay for the benefits you enjoy as its owner. By your "logic," it's injustice when ranchers have to pay a veterinarian to vaccinate cattle they "allegedly own," or lose the cattle.

    I repeat: WHY DO YOU PREFER INJUSTICE OVER JUSTICE?
     
  10. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't own any cattle, but if I did, I would expect to be charged for having a vet vaccinate them.

    But my property is fixed. It's not getting any larger, and if I add upgrades or additions to it, I have to pay for them, plus the sales tax and possibly government fees like permits to make it happen. Otherwise, it just sits there, and lets me enjoy it as I see fit. Aside from the benefits from "owning" it (which in fact, I do not, because the State demands an annual vig), your logic is off the charts crazy.
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you don't expect to be charged when the government provides services and infrastructure that benefit you as a landowner, and massively increase your wealth in return for no contribution on your part...?

    Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
    The land is fixed in area, but not in value. Its increased value is a welfare subsidy given to you by government and the community, and paid for by taxpayers. All government spending on desired services and infrastructure that is not wasted through incompetence or stolen through corruption ends up as a welfare subsidy to landowners.
    Your enjoyment of it is greatly increased by government spending on desirable services and infrastructure nearby, which is why its value is strongly related to its proximity to those services and infrastructure.

    You know this.
    Oh, so you don't expect to keep any capital gain when you sell it? You are just going to hand it over to the government to repay them for everything they have done for you over the years? Perhaps I misjudged you.

    But I think not.
    I am identifying facts which you have to find some way of not knowing, as you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.
     
  12. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is free market forces, not government influence, that determine if my property value increases, and to what extent. However, unless and until I sell the property, those increases are hypothetical and unrealized. Any theoretical increase in my net worth because my property inflated in value doesn't become real until then.

    Horse(*)(*)(*)(*). It's not a subsidy, and it's paid for only by a hypothetical future buyer of my property.

    Which should be funded by sales taxes, not rent to the state.

    At this moment, I intend to live here until I die. I have no plans to sell, do not want to sell, and would only even consider selling if some outside force (say a job so far away from here that makes commuting literally impossible, but is such a good deal, that I can't say no.) At that moment, I expect to pay capital gains taxes, unless I reinvest in another property that exempts me from that. But paying rent on an annual basis on a house that I "own" is simply immoral. Because it means I don't in fact "own" it in the first place.

    If you have to make regular payments on a property that you own, you don't own it.
     
  13. cyndibru

    cyndibru Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are absolutely correct. Your advice is absolutely the smart thing to do. The problem? Many people are motivated more by their emotions than practical common sense. This, IMO, in our country today is so much truer today than ever in the past. After WWII to the present, the changes in society have made it so. So many people think they should never have to do anything they find inconvenient or unpleasant, even for their own financial benefit. No decent jobs in your community? The government (taxpayers) needs to provide for me. I shouldn't have to MOVE, uproot myself, lose money on my house, etc etc. Well, that's what people did in the past to improve their lot in life. They moved across OCEANS, from the deep south to the northern U.S. cities to find jobs, etc. BEFORE CARS, even. They started over, completely, if necessary.

    Property prices in some areas of the country amaze me. Yes, they might be "desirable" areas. So what? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Your parents' generation may have gotten in while the getting was good, but things change.

    We have been dealing with the real estate issue recently, not because of the property tax issue but because of retirement. After 26 years and an inheritance, I convinced my husband to move to a larger but better laid out home. We bought it and planned to refi as soon as we remodeled and sold the home we moved from, and use the proceeds to pay down the mortgage on the new home, because my husband believed in the old adage of being mortgage debt-free in our later years. Shortly after we sold, he was offered a buyout and took early (age 56.5) retirement. After meeting with many different financial advisers, the advice on that particular issue was always the same. Times have changed. Use the cheap mortgage interest rate money, have the tax deduction, and treat it as a housing expense. Don't dump that lump sum back into the house, use the cash for current living expenses and let your investments grow between now and 59.5 and later. It took my husband a while, but he finally "got it" as to what made more sense financially, no matter how he "felt" emotionally about it. It's awesome. We totally upgraded our housing, it costs a small amount more than we were paying before, we have cash to live on and our money is making money. Who cares if the house is ever "paid off" before we croak?
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it's not. It's the size of the tax-funded welfare subsidy giveaway the market expects you will be able to pocket by owning the land. A free market does not allow use of force to give subsidies, so land would have zero value in a free market.
    Garbage. You have received a welfare subsidy giveaway just as much as if government gave you a bag of diamonds worth the same amount. The fact that you can't spend the diamonds in a store doesn't mean you haven't been given anything.

    You know this.
    That is false, absurd, and disingenuous GARBAGE, as proved above. Do you really claim that if government gives you a bag of diamonds worth $1M, it hasn't given you anything until you sell them? Of course you don't claim that: you know it would just be a stupid lie to claim that. But you feel that somehow your equivalent claim that the government hasn't given you anything just because it increased your land value by $1M in return for nothing, and you haven't yet sold it, is not a stupid lie.
    Fact.
    It is indisputably a subsidy: other people's taxes pay for it, and you take the value their taxes create.
    It is paid for by current taxpayers who are robbed of their rightful earnings to give you unearned wealth.
    Why should people who buy things be robbed of their earnings to give you unearned wealth?
    So, if you plan to keep the bag of diamonds government gave you until you die, then you claim the government hasn't given you anything? Of course you don't claim that. You know very well it would be a stupid lie to claim that. But you are quite comfortable claiming that the government hasn't given you anything even though it increased your land value by $1M for you.
    So you could even get a tax-free capital gain, and you STILL claim government hasn't given you anything??!?!?
    I have not suggested that you should pay annual rent on your house or anything else that you rightly own. But you should pay annual rent on the land of which you are depriving the community, which others would otherwise have been at liberty to use.

    What is really immoral is the relentless, insatiable greed of the landowner for unearned wealth. The greed of the welfare chiseler is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.
    You don't in fact own the land. You hold a fee simple title, issued by government on the condition that the taxes be kept current. You bought it knowing that fact, but now you are pretending to be hard done by when the government insists that you abide by the terms of the title's issue.

    Disgraceful.
    You don't own the land. So man up and pay for what you are taking from the community of those who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. Not a hard concept.
     
  15. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're so far off the wall that responding to your whole post would be pointless. But I will say this. The government didn't give me jack. I exchanged money for this house and land. In fact, I bought it FROM the government because it was a VA foreclosure.
     
  16. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Suppose that government ripped out all the public asphalt roads within 10 miles of your home, tore down the schools in the area, fired all the police officers, fire fighters, etc. – how much of your homes value would be lost because of this loss of access to public infrastructure and services? Would the value of your home fall in half? If so, you can figure that a hefty portion of your homes value is in the nature of a free-welfare-subsidy from government; paid for by taxing productive working people, and delivered free of charge to you the landowner.

    You may have indeed paid the previous landowner a hefty sum for access to these free government services, but that previous owner does not and will not provide any of those services. You, therefore, basically paid that previous landowner that hefty sum so that you could take his place at the free buffet of government provided goodies at that location, goodies which will be paid for by sweat of others labors.

    One of the great benefits of using land rent to pay for government infrastructure and services (geoism) is that those who live where infrastructure and services are of poorer quality do not have to subsidize those who live where those services are of higher quality. The taxes you pay are directly proportional to the value government is adding to the land that YOU hold to the exclusion of others. Plus, with land value taxation, you get something of tangible, exchangeable value for paying your taxes … pay your taxes and get valuable land usage rights in return. The more taxes you pay, the more valuable land you will get to exclude others from. Wouldn't it be nice to get something of equal value for the taxes which you pay … that is what happens under a land value tax system (geoism).
     
    bringiton likes this.
  17. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not suggesting that those things should not be funded, just that they should be funded some other way than charging property owners "rent" in exchange for not stealing their property.

    Tell that to a 90 year old who still lives in the house he or she bought when they were 35, and their current taxes are 10x what their original mortgage was. The chicken in my freezer is also "held" by me to the exclusion of others. Because I paid for it, and I own it. Probably a bad example, because it won't last for years if I don't cook and eat it in a reasonable amount of time, nonetheless, once I own it, I owe no further vig to government to keep it.
     
  18. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This is the type of thinking that just drives me mad. When government extends an asphalt road out the east side of town, it is those landowners on the east side of town which become instantly richer. The price of their land increases the moment it is known that the road will be extended. The increase in the value of their land is an immediate indicator of how much that government spending is going to benefit those landowners. Now, there is a young couple on the west side of town – the husband is a cook and the wife is a waitress. This young couple is struggling to put food in the mouth of their newborn child. My question to you is: what is your justification that this young couple on the west side of town should be taxed in order to pay for that road on the east side of town, when that new road on the east side of town isn't going to benefit them in the slightest? Why do you want to transfer wealth earned by this struggling young couple to some rich landowner on the other side of town, giving it to him as a free gift from the government? This is a clear case of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Again, what is your justification for this transfer of wealth, taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't?

    "Men did not make the earth …… it is the value of the improvement only and not the earth itself, that is individual property …. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds … from this ground rent I propose to create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person a sum." — Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
     
  19. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good. I'm sure you can find a safe space where your delicate snowflake ass won't melt.

    No, they don't. They only become richer, assuming their property value has gone up, when they sell the property. Until that moment it is only hypothetical and unrealized. Not to mention in my specific case, which I realize is anecdotal, the roads servicing my area were built well before I was born, and there isn't room (or need) to build more.

    That question could be asked of every type of taxation, and every type of government spending. Why am I paying for schools when I don't have children?

    You know, if the taxes were based simply on the value of the bare unimproved land, I might object less. But they're not. Build a house on that bare land, and the taxes increase. Remodel an existing house (which I am in the process of doing), BOOM, taxes go up. Add a fence? Taxes go up. New pool? Taxes go up. Repaint? Taxes go up. Replace your decaying roof? Taxes go up. It's a scam, and it's unjust. When you buy property, you should own that property outright, free of future non optional fees for which you receive nothing in return.

    Part of my taxes directly pay for garbage collection. I'd rather receive a bill for garbage collection with the ability to opt out if I can find an alternative means of disposing of my garbage.
     
  20. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    They don't have to sell to become richer as they can simply collect higher rents, get more unearned income.

    Wrong. Land values on the west side of town won't go up because a road is extended on the east side of town – therefore those on the west side don't have to pay taxes to fund that infrastructure. They don't have to pay for it because their unchanged land values dictate that they don't benefit from it.

    The land value tax system would turn that into a choice that you could make – if you don't want to pay for schools you can move to a location where access to schools is not available and therefore not a benefit that pushes land rents (taxes) up.

    .
    Then we are not as far apart as you might think, because that is what I advocate for.

    I agree that taxes on improvements are a scam. Taxes on improvements discourage improvements. Below is a video that explains why taxing improvements is a bad idea.

    [video=youtube;ok2uR3btMrE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE[/video]
     
  21. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am, and have been, talking about owner occupied properties. Unless you get far away from civilization, there are no areas that don't have schools.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IOW, you have been proved wrong and you know it.
    The government gave you the entire increase in the value of "your" land since you bought it.
    So, you are claiming that if you simply "exchange money" for a license to take money from taxpayers, you haven't been given anything? You claim that if you exchanged $1 for the land, and the government has since then made it worth $1M, you haven't been given anything?

    The inevitable descent into absurdity.
    And the entire increase in the land's value since that time is a welfare subsidy the government has given you.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant. You have been given the increased land value. What you choose to do with it does not alter the fact that it has been given to you as a welfare subsidy. If government gave you a bag of diamonds worth the same amount, and you just put them in a drawer somewhere, and never used them or looked at them or rented them out, it would still be a gift to you. You know this.
    But the quality and proximity of the schools, like all other government-provided services and infrastructure, add commensurately to the welfare subsidy you are pocketing at the public expense.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the landowners who have stolen everyone else's rights to liberty.
    Gladly. Are you saying that when people are pocketing a welfare subsidy at the expense of the community, they should for some reason not be reminded of it if they are 90 years old? Are 90-year-olds somehow too delicate to hear the truth: that they are profiting from evil? If a 90-year-old owned a slave, would you say we should likewise spare their feelings, and not tell them that they are profiting from evil?
    Because you bought it from someone who PRODUCED it. You did not buy the land from anyone who produced it.
    So if someone has paid for a slave, they rightly own the slave....?
    No, it's a bad example because your ownership of the chicken originates in an act of production. Your ownership of the land, like ownership of a slave, originates in an act of theft.
    Wrong, as already proved. Keeping the taxes current is a CONDITION of the original title. You just want to get the benefits without paying for them, and without living up to the terms of the original title.

    Disgraceful. But not unexpected. The greed of the welfare chiseler for unearned wealth is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are heaping disgrace upon yourself.
    Yes, they most certainly and indisputably do.
    No, that claim is just false as a matter of objective physical fact, as I have already proved to you.
    False. If government gives you a bag of diamonds worth $1M, your wealth has increased by $1M whether or not you ever sell them. You know this.
    Irrelevant. You just paid the previous landowner for the gift HE got from the government when they put the road through.
    EXCEPT spending on desirable services and infrastructure that is paid for by land value taxation, because in that case and ONLY in that case is the payment being made for the specific benefits received.
    Because the schools increase the value of your land. I realize you want to take and pocket that value without paying for it, but don't expect us to ignore the fact that that is a welfare subsidy government is giving to you.
    I'm sure geofree agrees with you, as I do, that the value you create when you improve a property should not be taxed. But the land value that government services and infrastructure create should rightly be recovered to pay for them, instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize landowners.
    But land can never rightly be property.
    We've already proved to you that you don't receive nothing in return. Landowners take EVERYTHING that publicly provided services and infrastructure provide. No one else benefits at all. It is TAXPAYERS who are receiving nothing in return for their taxes, because landowners take it all.
    I.e., like all landowners, you want something for nothing. What a surprise. Not.
     

Share This Page