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

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

  1. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    8,229
    Likes Received:
    4,114
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's why, regardless of what people claim, once you have government and thus taxation for the public good you are by definition socialist
     
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,768
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to do some reading what 'socialism' actually is...it has zero to do with what you mention here...
     
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Raising the minimum wage and solving for simple poverty can help more people stay in their homes.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Please provide said definition, from any recognized dictionary.
    .
    .
    .
    Thought not.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No? When Prop 13 passed in 1978, CA was one of the best states to live in on many metrics. Now it is one of the worst.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    <yawn> What do you think protects your land title against someone else with a gun, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What an absurd load of nonsense. You are basically saying that everyone should be enslaved for the unearned profit of homeowners.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Were you under an erroneous impression that that could be relevant to something I said? I'm the one who says value is what a thing would trade for. Not someone's subjective opinion.
    Comparable sales, obviously. Same way government assessors would value property if the law allowed them to.
    Depends what you mean by "need." It would be better if they used one, but many do not.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Better, you mean.
    I.e., it makes it less expensive to buy. Things being less expensive is GOOD.
    The schools increase their land value, so they are getting a benefit they should rightly pay for. You just want them to get a subsidy at other people's expense. You want landowners to be able to charge others for ACCESS to schools that the others' taxes already paid for. You want landowners to be legally entitled to steal.
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not due to Proposition 13. We are enduring the neglect here due to Democrats ruling us.

    Proposition 13 did harm funding for schools. But that was made up for.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WOW What a spin job. I used to fly all the time. i could have used that spin to start the Piper airplane engine.

    I have sold property as an agent since 1971. I also have appraised it as a licensed appraiser.

    It you told an appraisal course that, they would get a huge laugh.

    Taxes are a factor in home prices. To try to act like taxes are a benefit is amusing.

    We saw prices climb after proposition 13 passed. Sellers gained plenty. Buyers did pay more, but they later also gained a lot on a later sale. If they kept the property, they found they were not subject to annual killer tax increases. This did not help counties or schools, but since when are we slaves to either? As a homeowner, you have no say at all over things like property taxes. The people here in CA got sick of being treated to killer tax hikes. I am surprised it did not spread nationally. Citizens in high taxed states, look over proposition 13. It helped CA and it sure could help you.
     
  12. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The best thing about proposition is that it amended the CA constitution. That made the state much better.
    As both a Broker and former appraiser, I can write a book on why it was needed, why it works and why it did not lead to harm of CA.

    For instance. Prior to Proposition 13, the values of homes was determined by market forces. As it still is. But were property a result of market forces or the wild ass claim by an assessor's office?

    Should the person owning the home be considered at all in taxes to be paid?

    What if Grandma bought the home with grandpaw in 1950 and wanted to sell prior to 1978.

    First her purchase price in 1950 could easily have been $8,000

    She saw her taxes climb like a jet fighter. By 1977 her home was worth about $30,000. She was taxed like it was a mansion. Taxes of more than $4,000 per year. Proposition 13 reset her taxes.

    Back to an earlier year.

    And if she held the home, her taxes rose a dictated 2 percent over last years. A buyer was to pay the amount of 1 percent of the sale price to the buyer. OK, the buyer did not get quite as good a deal. But rather than the Buyer being tagged the high rate prior to Proposition 13, he got tagged much less. And he held it for 30 years. And got lower taxes. Buyers wanted to be treated that way so his value was fair for him and any new buyer.

    i can say this too. Prior to Proposition 13, taxpayers all over CA were furious. Post proposition 13 and they no longer whine about high property taxes.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Allow the market to float all boats. It always has and always will with republicans in office.

    Give you an example.

    My grandson. Soon will graduate from the university. Will work for Facebook since he already has a contract with them and they paid him bonus money.

    Give Facebook the order to pay minimum wage and why would they be enticed to pay him as much as his contract calls for? His total to him will exceed $200,000 and that is very good for a young man of 18.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
  14. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    This still cracks me up. But for Proposition 13, our sellers losses would amount to trillions of dollars. While questionable the state would collect even as much as they currently collect. We have failing schools but not due to taxes. CA made up for all alleged lost taxes.

    Back then on that $30,000 home taxed at $4,000 in my example, for the previous period of 10 years, the state soaked the homeowner at least $24,000 and the 10 earlier years probably $18,000. For a home that cost $8,000 that was some soaking.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is indisputably due to Prop 13, which forces the state government and all local governments to give large, increasing, and unsustainable subsidies to landowners.
    It was heading in the same direction under Republicans, such as when Arnie was governor.
    And all other public services and infrastructure.
    Nope.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nonsense with no basis in economics. And you seem to be forgetting: if sellers lost trillions, buyers would gain the same amount. The difference is that banksters would get less.
    Nope. It couldn't, because whatever other taxes are imposed just increase the subsidy to landowners. It's inescapable because of the Henry George Theorem. CA is in a death spiral caused directly and exclusively by Prop 13.
    But nothing remotely close to that ever happened.
    The cost of the home is irrelevant. The subsidy to the homeowner is measured by the land value. You just want to be able to pocket that subsidy at everyone else's expense.
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is fact.
    Then you are aware that I am right.
    Appraisal courses typically don't go into what causes demand for land. They just take it as a given reflected in price.
    So I'm right, and you are wrong.
    No taxes, no civilization. Sounds like a benefit to me.
    Yes, Prop 13 shoveled money into their pockets in return for nothing, at everyone else's expense. That was its purpose.
    But had to pay far more mortgage interest to banksters, who have also made out like bandits at the expense of the people, thanks to Prop 13.
    I.e., everyone else was forced to subsidize them.
    We are slaves to landowners, as proved by the fact that they get rich without lifting a finger, while the landless toil their lives away and end up with nothing.
    The subsidy to the landowner does not depend on the homeowner. It is measured by the land value
    I.e., LANDOWNERS did not want to PAY for what they were TAKING.

    And how has it been for the PEOPLE of CA since then, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
    You might want to look at how high-property-tax TX has done in the last 40 years compared to low-property-tax CA.
    "Helped CA"????? Give your head a shake. It has self-evidently destroyed CA.[/quote][/quote]
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2019
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Every statistic proves you wrong. CA has been a disaster since 1978.
    And would be laughably wrong.
    The assessor's offices did a pretty good job of measuring market value despite political interference from landowners who tried everything to get them to falsify assessments.
    Of course not. Who owns the place is irrelevant to how much they are taking from the community.
    So did inflation. Do you think government expenses don't track inflation?
    False.
    13%?? Obviously that is a bald falsehood. Try $400.
    To force everyone to subsidize landowners.
    No matter how much the subsidy increased.
    Right: Prop 13 was exclusively for the benefit of those who already owned land, at the expense of everyone else.
    Because they were fools who didn't understand how they were being robbed.
    Garbage.
    Because everyone else is their slave. And what happened? How many people lost their homes, their savings, and everything else in the crash of 2008, which was CAUSED BY Prop 13? Why did the crash leave the citizens of high-property-tax states like TX almost unscathed, while low-property-tax states like CA went through a bloodbath?
     
  19. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that people is the mind of a statist. A Democrat is loyal only to the state but the public can cram it up the garbage can.

    I have more units in this topic than your graduate students holding a masters degree. Though not current, I was once state certified to teach this type of topic.

    Let me repeat. Taxes were skyrocketing. That is why the public was so eager to vote for Proposition 13. Were they as you said, there would never been a proposition 13.

    TX I have looked at a bit and the values of homes there are low. They will rise given time.

    The crash could have been prevented had the Democrats listened to Bush. Bush was alert to the problems.

    However most Americans, including bankers were not. Even the Federal Reserve was caught by surprise.

    California quit depending on property taxes as much as previously and converted to taxes more equitably distributed. Democrats will promise you things that they do not have to pay for. but you get to pay for them. They will tax you to death. If they gave a damn about the poor, the poor would no longer be poor.
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    People, this poster has no clue about market values, tax systems and no clue at all about what we appraisers measured as land and real values.

    Proposition 13 saved so many people from losing homes it is difficult to assign a number but over time quite possible to do.

    There was no subsidy to homeowners. Maybe he lives in Bumplace Egypt.
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [/quote][/QUOTE]


    Appraisal courses typically don't go into what causes demand for land. They just take it as a given reflected in price.

    You are not even an appraiser. Do you also pull this stunt on all other topics?

    TX is a place to buy low priced property that has large living spaces.

    You keep chatting about land values. We in CA have higher land values but not because of proposition 13.

    Our main drivers in my area are composed of these factors.
    1. Excellent climate
    2. Major sea ports
    3. Major highly regarded education facilities, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.
    4. Major airports here
    5. Excellent infrastructure in general. True the state promises better roads but pissed off that money on a railroad to noplace and ferry systems and other crap.

    What is this horsepucky of landowners not willing to pay? We were willing to pay a fair fee, proposition 13 gave it to us.
     
  22. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    7,404
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You sound like one of the most jealous, entitled persons I've dealt with in awhile. When you purchase something, you OWN it, free and clear. If you have to pay perpetual and ongoing rent to a third party, they are the actual property owner. That makes property taxes immoral, unethical, and downright evil. They should be Constitutionally prohibited. You speak of people "getting rich without lifting a finger" to the extent that's true at all, it requires you to sell the property, which requires you to replace it, or make a choice to live in a cardboard box to have access to all those riches.

    Roughly 80% of my property taxes goes to K-12 education. Here's the problem: I don't have kids. Never have. So I'm being forced at the point of a gun to pay for some other people's kids education at the risk of losing my house if I fail to comply. That's simply not right.

    Landowners do not take. They BUY. At least I did. But for the fact that I have to pay an annual rent to the State. Shameful.
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can only benefit any local economy.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL!! I'm not the one who demands that people pay for government TWICE, son. YOU are.
    I'm not a Democrat, and it is the public that has been horribly harmed by Prop 13, as all statistics show.
    Then why can't you offer any facts or arguments, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
    Let me repeat: they were not. You have not provided any evidence for that claim, nor will you ever be doing so. Property taxes as a fraction of CA state GDP had actually FALLEN.
    No, they were eager to vote for it because pro-Prop 13 liars like Howard Jarvis lied to them. Jarvis was a professional real estate industry lobbyist who swore to voters on a stack of Bibles that if CA tenants would just vote for Prop 13, their rents would go down. They believed him, passed Prop 13, and their rents immediately started rising even faster.
    Wrong again. Prop 13 was entirely the creature of extremely wealthy real estate interests, who have been the only ones to benefit from it. Everyone else has been screwed.
    You again prove your ignorance of the topic. Home values in TX are low because the property tax rate is high. That doesn't seem to be changing.
    Nope. The crash was already baked into the exorbitant subsidies to landowners and banksters, and Republicans did as much to cause it as Democrats.
    Because they learned the same BS economics you did.
    No, they are LESS equitably distributed, which is why CA land values have soared: everyone is being forced to subsidize landowners EVEN MORE THAN BEFORE.
    Why are you trying to change the subject? The poor in CA were not in such bad shape in 1978 when Prop 13 passed. Now they are living in Third World conditions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    People, this poster makes a lot of false claims and offers no evidence for them.
    Nope. Flat false. No one was saved from "losing their home" by Prop 13, because no one was losing their homes to property taxes before Prop 13. They were simply deciding it would be to their advantage to sell and pocket large, untaxed capital gains that the community was giving them in return for nothing. When someone who bought a house for $10K sells it for $100K, that is not "losing their home." It is pocketing a gift of $90K. So you are just makin'; $#!+ up again. In fact, Prop 13 CAUSED people by the thousands to lose their homes, their life savings, and everything else in the GFC by helping banksters and speculators kite CA house prices to the stratosphere from 1978 to 2006.
    False. The subsidy to all landowners is measured by the unimproved value of their land, which is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of how much more the landowner can expect to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever pay in taxes on it.
    <yawn> Too bad you have nothing to offer but such childish muck.
     

Share This Page