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

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

  1. Jack Links

    Jack Links Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's what those Russians on this forum said when the comment was made that their median income is low. They said they only report a small amount. The rest is made under the table.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, you are obligated to PAY FOR WHAT YOU ARE GETTING, which includes the land value public schools create for you.
    You paid a previous parasite for it, not the community that created it. And you did NOT pay the previous parasite for the increase in value the community has given you as a welfare subsidy since then.
    Right: you made a large bet on evil. So now if evil loses, you lose. So you want evil to win. You now prefer evil to good, because evil is profitable for you. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you. You are on the side of evil, against good.
    It's not exactly the same, true. Just like a bank fraud that siphons off small sums from millions of accounts is not the same as entirely draining one large account. The difference between slavery and landowning is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights to liberty, while when you own land, you remove one of all people's rights to liberty. See the parallel with the bank frauds? Don't imagine that removing people's rights to liberty is any less slavery, or any less evil, when a large number of people remove small slices of everyone's liberty than when one person removes all of one person's liberty.
     
    geofree likes this.
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Right. Because they are born with their rights to liberty already removed, and made the private property of landowners.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The value of land is the exact measure of how much more the landowner could afford to be paying in taxes.
    Try avoiding a tax on land value. You can't move it, and you can't hide it.
     
  4. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,672
    Likes Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Florida, $1500 tax bill on home bought in the 90's, we have a 3% cap for those that are Homesteaded, it started around $1100.

    My neighbor who uses his house about 8 weeks a year bought 3 years ago, his tax bill is $5500.

    Good friend of mine who lives a mile away in a 900K home he bought 2 years ago, $11000. < ouch.

    I've never asked my IL relatives just how much they pay, but I'd probably be shocked.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Probably not. Land value is the exact measure of how much more the market expects the landowner to take from society by owning the land than it expects him to pay in taxes on the land. Land values in IL tend to be a lot lower than in FL, partly because property tax rates are higher. Higher property tax rates ---> lower prices. Understand how that works?
     
  6. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,672
    Likes Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not quite sure what the hell you just said in the first sentence, is clarification possible assuming it was a substantive point?

    at a glance, land values in IL aren't coming up lower than FL, for what i'd consider an attractive location depending on the zip code of course.

    anyhoo, yowza, i popped over to a few property appraiser websites to dig up my Illinois relatives.

    they are all getting hit pretty hard, every single one is paying at least 3-4x what I pay up to 12K not to mention a state tax, looking on the bright side the snow is free :)

    that's pretty hefty,ballpark of an extra 250-300 a month, over what I pay for comparable property factoring in that insurance is cheaper .

    Of course that is anecdotal evidence so i'm not making any dramatic assumptions but it sure as hell looks expensive!

    granted, we ARE comparing apples and oranges with two states. You can probably find evidence of more comparable locations with dramatically different property taxes in just a few different zip codes in IL. I've never really dug that deep into it except to know that i'm in a fortunate situation and its a strong incentive to not move.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'll try to make it simpler. Land value is how much more money the landowner can expect to take from society by owning the land than he can expect to pay in taxes on it.
    The idea is to compare ALL the land.
    And paying commensurately less on their mortgages.
     
  8. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,158
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's human nature...someone tries to ding us we will fight back, we will get creative, we will cheat...

    - - - Updated - - -

    This is nonsense...la-la-land...fact is most people either don't have more cash to give in taxation or they refuse! Has nothing to do with landowners?
     
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,158
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113

    In my area we are paying 1% of the so-called market value of the property, but once a property is purchased Proposition 13 kicks in to keep property taxes from going crazy...maximum 2% value increase per year. Someone buying a million$ property today will pay $10,000 per year.

    I remember growing up in Los Angeles, living in a post-WWII track home, purchased for around $5,000, with the booming national and local economy, property values were skyrocketing! Depending on where your home was located after about 10 years it could have been valued at hundreds of thousand$ and property taxes started driving people out of their homes. Along came Proposition 13 to help people keep their homes. It's surely different today but back then the normal idea was to buy a home, pay off the mortgage, and live in it until you die. However escalating property taxes in some cases took away this dream but thanks to Prop 13 people can remain in their homes without fear of $20,000 annual property tax bills...
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Fact.
    So they can afford to pocket the subsidy to landowning, but not to give any of it back....?

    Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
    Well! I guess if billionaires refuse to repay any of the subsidies they are given, we mustn't be so impolite as to ask them for anything!
    The Henry George Theorem shows that landowners pocket everyone else's taxes. That's the bottom line. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH, despite being provided for free by nature. HELLO?
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    To increase the welfare subsidy to the owner, you mean.
    Meaning the subsidy will grow.
    I.e., the community was shoveling money into landowners' pockets.
    So the owners had been given hundreds of thousands for doing nothing.
    Nope. Never happened.
    Garbage. It was to increase the already exorbitant welfare subsidy to landowners, and has done exactly that, shoveling TRILLIONS into their pockets.
    Good luck with that today: Prop 13 has guaranteed you cannot afford to buy a home unless you already own land.
    Garbage. It never happened. That's just a fairy tale Howard Jarvis made up.
    I see. They don't have to be afraid that after it gives them millions for doing nothing, the community will ask for some of that welfare subsidy back.
     
  12. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,158
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're off on a personal diatribe that doesn't make sense to me?

    Landowners do not get any subsidies?

    Fact is MOST people do not have extra cash for higher taxes or refuse to pay higher taxes.

    You're wasting everyone's time if all you can focus on is 'billionaires'.

    Your theorem is obscure and does not happen in real life...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Too much diatribe and little substance for me to properly respond...
     
  13. Jack Links

    Jack Links Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you think it's okay to steal people's money.
    Incredible.
    Why don't you just give all your money to the government? I'll let you pay my taxes, so you can have a warm fuzzy for helping someone in need.
     
  14. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,268
    Likes Received:
    7,158
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Residential property taxes are a way the government preys on old folks to take away their homes.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I.e., you choose not to know the facts that prove I am right and you are wrong. Shocker!
    Land value measures the subsidies. It is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of the future net subsidies.
    Right: most people do not get the subsidies, and therefore do not have the cash. And those who DO get the subsidies are the ones with the cash. So let those who do get the subsidies "refuse" to repay them all they want: they will just lose their privileges, and then where will they be?
    I'm not focusing on billionaires, as you know very well. I just pointed out that the non-billionaire recipients of subsidies "refusing" to repay them is not an argument that they shouldn't be repaying them any more than billionaires refusing to repay them is an argument that they shouldn't be repaying them.
    "Obscure"? Is that supposed to make me ignore the fact that it has been proved mathematically?
    But it is close enough, because its conditions are close to realistic.
    IOW, you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, that is an absurd, preposterous, and disingenuous concoction you made up to prevent readers from thinking about justice, because you are against justice. You believe that injustice is better than justice, so you do not want others to start thinking about justice.
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    <yawn> Read and learn, my child:

    A baker has been giving pies to a local protection racketeer to stay in his good graces. The racketeer is used to getting the pies for free. One day, a clean-up is ordered, and the racketeer is put out of business by the police. He comes into the bakery and asks for his usual pies. When the baker asks him to pay for them, he says:

    "So you think it's OK to steal people's money."

    I do not propose to steal anyone's money, that is something you made up because you don't want to think about justice, and you don't want others to think about it, either. I want people to PAY FOR WHAT THEY ARE TAKING. You are used to taking without paying, so when I propose that you should pay for what you are taking, you, like the erstwhile protection racketeer, accuse me of wanting to steal your money.
    Yes. How thieves manage to convince themselves that they are somehow being stolen from when they are asked to pay for what they are taking is indeed incredible.
    Because that would be unjust. That is why you are proposing it: you know that it would be unjust, and you prefer injustice to justice.
    I have no interest in people's "needs," I am interested in their RIGHTS. I simply advocate justice. And that is what you cannot abide, because you want to continue benefiting from injustice. You prefer injustice to justice, evil to good. You think evil is better than good, and you want evil to defeat good because you are on the side of evil, against good. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
     
  18. Jack Links

    Jack Links Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So typical of a condescending social justice warrior. Accuse others of what you are guilty of: extortion in the form of taxes. Government is the mob, forcing people to pay them money to keep their land, or they will steal it.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Read and learn -- if you can:
    Garbage. Property taxes are not extortion. Government only issued the land title in the first place on condition the taxes were kept current, and EVERYONE WHO HAS BOUGHT REAL ESTATE HAS BEEN FULLY AWARE OF THAT FACT. Paying the property taxes is a CONDITION OF THE TITLE. Furthermore, government and the community are the SOURCE OF THE LAND'S VALUE, not the owner. So you could with equal "logic" claim that when a car dealer asks a customer to keep up his payments or it will repossess the car, it is "extortion."
    More garbage. The land title only has legal force in the first place because government GAVE it to the owner ON CONDITION THE TAXES WERE KEPT CURRENT. And HE KNEW THAT WHEN HE BOUGHT IT.
     
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,158
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps a problem with property taxes is most of them are levied on an estimated market 'value'. And instead they should be levied a static amount (plus inflation) based on square feet or whatever in which they all are quite similar in amounts. For example, today one property valued at $100K is taxed at $1000 while another property valued at $1 million is taxed at $10,000...yet both properties consume almost identical services from government. When property 'values' increase due solely to market conditions and when property taxes remain a percent of this value, the $100K property can find themselves 'valued' at $1 million and be faced with $10K in taxation...hence the reason for this thread. It is obvious that most people who live in a $100K property DO NOT have $10,000 per year in cash to pay property taxes. In my County the median home price is $650K and I'll estimate the property tax on this is about $7200 per year...even for those who can wrangle their way into buying a $650K home they might not be able to afford $7200 in property taxes over the long haul...
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, the problem is that most of them aren't. There are myriad ways local governments prevent property taxes being based on actual market value.
    Why would we charge property owners similar amounts when they are being given wildly different amounts of welfare subsidy by government and the community?
    No, of course they don't. Although improvement value is only loosely related to the benefits the property owner gets from government and the community, land value is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of the future net subsidy from the community to the owner in the form of government services and infrastructure, and the opportunities and amenities that emerge naturally in the community due to people's private activities.
    Because the increased value shows they are taking that much more from the community in tax-funded welfare subsidies.
    The reason for this thread is to try to contrive a plausible rationalization for landowner greed, privilege, and parasitism.
    They would if they weren't being systematically robbed by OTHER taxes to provide the exorbitant welfare subsidy to landowners.
    That's over 1% of market: possible, but certainly not common in the USA.
    Sure they could. Future property taxes come out of the purchase price. If the property tax was $0, the mortgage on the higher purchase price would just be about $600/month -- $7200/yr -- more. Higher property tax rates make housing MORE affordable, not less affordable.
     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,158
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually most all property taxes are a percentage of an estimated property value...if you believe otherwise then provide some data.

    Property taxes are never based on actual value? The ONLY way to know actual value is to sell the property.

    We're not talking about welfare and people here?? This is about property taxes!

    You're all diatribe and zero substance and reality...
     
  23. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    15,089
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at Upstate New York if you want to see the very long-term effects of high tax rates.
     
  24. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    23,261
    Likes Received:
    2,767
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's no different than anywhere else in the country. It's all relative to salary earned.
     
  25. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    7,423
    Likes Received:
    606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Property taxes should not exist. But IF they do, they should have NOTHING to do with your slavery, er, I mean salary.
     

Share This Page