Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by MolonLabe2009, Oct 14, 2016.
The fact is that they do, like it or not, we just have to accept it if we demand services.
I do not demand services. Perhaps you do. Shame on you.
Of course you do, you just don't realize it. Never cast judgement until you review your own self.
No, I don't.
I expect to pay to get fed. I expect to pay to get watered. I expect to pay (with gas taxes, though I would prefer a weight/mile fee) for roads. My trash delivery is "paid for" in my property taxes, but I wish it wasn't. What if I create no trash? Oh, well, gotta pay for it anyway. Have no kids in school, but I'm paying a LOT for them. More than willing to pay my actual fair share of street lights, as long as I can opt out. I don't need your services, and you don't need my money.
So you don't need police or fire protection?? You don't need your roads maintained?? You don't need hospital?? You don't need courts of law?? the list goes on and on......
I must correct the top of the post. The base tax is as stated, 1 percent of sales price.
However added in are bonds that are being paid off.
Say the tax on the sale (property tax based on the sale price to the buyer) is 1percent but there are .2 percent in bonds being paid. The rate then is 1.2 percent.
Say the next door home that is the same house sold ten years earlier, they are taxed not on the same rate as the neighbor but their 1 percent applies to the price when they purchased that home.
Since 1978 many bonds were paid off so the taxed property may well have a lower tax bill than it had previously.
But the gist is those who sell today hand the buyer a higher tax bill than the seller had.
If you keep the home forever, your taxes are simply adjusted upwards the legal limit of 2% of the change upwards. It is very low and we worked hard to pass proposition 13.
Math 1% base tax change up is say $5000 and on that they up the taxes by $100. Also when prices decline, the county must lower the taxes upon the presentment of an appraisal by a licensed appraiser.
CA claimed it would ruin the state. It has not ruined CA.
I do not think the taxes on property go for local police. If the home is in a county area, that is not city, the sheriff would service them and get paid though. So many fire departments are volunteers it is not possible to make a blanket statement. If the area pays salary and pays for equipment of course the homes pay their part. Blacktopping of course should be paid from the county taxes on county lands but cities rely not on property taxes but their sales and use taxes. A hospital can be of course included in property taxes. It is more complicated than that but this serves to give the idea of how CA property taxes work. All counties collect those taxes.
Yes...we must fund the governments which we demand!
We could terminate the hundreds of tax points we have today and just invoice every adult in the US $25,000 per year. Sadly, perhaps 70-80% of US citizens won't be able to come up with $25K every year...then what? Instead our politicians divide this $25K over hundreds of tax points, like property tax, assuming those who can afford to own property can probably afford to pay property taxes. The bad news; governments at all levels are going to become more expensive...
I have a gun, a fire extinguisher, 2 dogs, and health insurance. I pay gas taxes. Any other questions?
Yes, can I have some of whatever you are drinking?
I haven't started drinking yet.
we need an upward pressure on wages. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to help keep our markets liquid.
Keep in mind that will to some extent also create an upward pressure on prices and housing prices.
In some areas the problem isn't inequality, it's too many people.
Homes should be owned in perpetuity.
But "estimated" in a way that is almost always guaranteed to be wrong. In many jurisdictions, assessments are required to be some fraction -- often a small fraction -- of market value. In some places like CA since Prop 13, assessments are frozen at the transaction price, and can't be increased more than a certain percent each year no matter what the actual value is. In many places assessments are dependent on the type of property, and different fractinos are used for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc. Which property tax jurisdiction do you live in? If you check out the assessment rules in your own locale, I can pretty much guarantee they specify that the actual market value not be used.
The methods used to falsify -- almost always to understate -- property value for tax purposes are myriad. Read, "How to Lie with Real Estate Statistics" by Prof Michael Hudson and at least minimally inform yourself.
It's rare in the USA, unheard-of in the UK, unusual in Canada and Australia.
Wrong again. Sales can happen under all sorts of conditions that do not result in the market value being paid. Value is what an item would trade for, but what it DID trade for is price, not value. The notion that value can only be known from an actual transaction is false and ridiculous, as the prices asked and bid in actual transactions are almost always based on appraiser estimates anyway.
Land value is the present value of the market's estimate of the future welfare subsidy to the owner.
<yawn> You have no facts or logic to offer, so you just refuse to know the facts I identify for you.
Property taxes are based on a valuation which is derived from local formulas...and none of the calculations are precise. There is a perceived property value and some percentage of this is used to calculate the property tax. Every property owner has the right to question the valuations and the assessed taxes and ask for adjustments.
When you say things like 'almost always guaranteed to be wrong' or 'almost always to understate' you are biasing reality.
Sorry but the only way to know actual value of anything is to sell it...
more people having more money to spend can only help markets meet demand more efficiently.
Your argument seems to be that a bigger scale will increase efficiency.
India, with a billion people, must have very efficient markets then.
I think a population of 300 million is plenty big enough, and making the population bigger than that isn't really going to lead to any greater scale of efficiency.
Anyway, the "more people, more money" argument is a pretty pathetic one.
For one thing, twice the people isn't going to lead to twice the wealth,
and for a second thing, even if there was twice as much money there'd be still be twice as many people! (doesn't sound like each person will be better off)
#2 : If more people really leads to more money then won't we be hurting all these other poor countries by taking all their people? Won't that make all these countries even more poor, according to your logic?
No, maybe we should be sending people to them so they'll get rich and more people will want to come to them!
see how absurd this type of logic is?
economic growth based on perpetual population growth...the elephant in the room that no politician will address
in a finite world, with finite resources, infinite growth is impossible our economic system cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Some cops are corrupt and on the take. I knew a Chicago police Sargent who had a free lifetime membership to an exclusive country club, a crew would show up twice a week to mow, garden and remove snow, for free. He lived on our block in a nice suburb about 23 miles away from the city limits. At that time, police were required to live within the city, he didn't.
Most cops in the state are not corrupt. Small town cops make a lot less than big city cops and there is less opportunity or temptation to become corrupt.
Illinois has a big problem with totally entrenched democrats from Chicago who sometimes work in Springfield (the capitol) but who run the entire state. Underfunded unionized public pensions is probably the biggest problem the state has.
I grew up in the suburbs of IL. At the time, there were plenty of good jobs, housing costs were fairly reasonable depending on where you lived. Compared to many other large cities, Chicago was overall considered reasonable. I left over 30 yeas ago but it was still not an overly expensive place to live probably less than 20 years ago. Sad.
Well, they are a lot more precise -- often to the penny -- than they are accurate.
No, it's often not a value that anyone "perceives" but simply a value calculated according to a wildly unrealistic formula.
No, I am identifying the facts.
No, I already explained why that is false. What something sold for is its price, which is usually very close to value but may be quite far from it for various reasons. Its value is what it WOULD sell for, not what it DID sell for.
Here's what I suggest for you; make a claim to your insurance company, and/or make a loss deduction on your tax forms, for a personal effect, like a painting, that was stolen, and you claim it's worth $75,000 even though you can buy them all day long for $75...and tell us what happens?
When you list a house for sale do you set the price based on what other like houses are 'selling' for or do you set a price based on what you 'think' it will sell for?
There does not need to be any realistic formula for calculating taxes?? All governments tax based on myriad reasons and they vary from government to government.
New Jersey is even worse than Illinois real estate tax wise.It makes it extremely difficult to sell real estate when people see how much the R.E.Tax will be.Part of the problem is supporting the public school system which is usually the major portion of taxes.Particularly tough on childless homeowners and seniors who haven't had a child in school in 30 or more years.
Everyone needs to pay for the government that society demands. If a person does not drive a car should they pay taxes for roads...of course. A person with no kids benefits greatly from public education so they should pay. The bottom line is governments at all levels cost a lot of money today...
Separate names with a comma.