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

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

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Being factually correct and proving soi-disant "experts" wrong? Yeah, I actually do it quite a lot.
    TX doesn't have that much lower population density than CA. Housing is cheap there because high property tax rates keep speculation down by reducing the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.
    False. It is mainly because of Prop 13, as proved by the discontinuity between price increase rates before and after Prop 13.
    More false and absurd garbage from you. All those were in place before Prop 13, when land values in CA were much lower because the subsidy to landowners was lower. And the infrastructure was actually BETTER then, although land prices are far higher now.
    More garbage from you. There's nothing fair about paying back $10 when you have stolen $100, which is what Prop 13 enabled landowners to get away with.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  2. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will forgive you as a political animal but as a factual animal, you are so wrong and so strident that one can't forgive.

    You show no interest in facts.

    My facts are based on these facts.
    1. Since 1971, I have constantly been a real estate professional. As a Broker in fact. We are more trained than are our salespeople.
    2. Further broker training is about 45 years where I averaged 45 hours new education per 4 years. 506 hours formal added education beats what you have.
    3. This ignores the fact that to obtain my Brokers license i was taking college courses and was heavily tested by the State of Ca. And you tested for how long?
    4. Added to that is my appraisers license I let lapse in 1997. That was only obtained by my expert status as a Broker plus mandated education of over 110 hours of college level courses. Some was in fact obtained in college but other professionals in the appraisal business also had approved courses that I took. Such as around 40 hours education at the San Jose CA Real Estate Board.
    5. Professionally owning both a RE Brokers office plus a CA Appraisers office for years.
    6. Training both agents to be salespeople and later training the appraisers working for my own appraisal company. How many people have you trained and when? I have trained over 50 real estate agents plus about 10 appraisers.

    Tell me no more tall tales about Proposition 13. You do not source your information or i might take a whack at that.

    Folks, stand and laugh as he ignores all of my points i made above. Watch him scramble to divert.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, just the most honest, which is why you cannot refute a single sentence I wrote.
    I.e., you own land on exactly the same basis that slave owners owned slaves, and are making the exact same argument slave owners made to the abolitionists. You seek to rob and enslave others by owning their rights to liberty. As I already told you.
    Nope. Your claims continue to be objectively false. Ownership is defined by four rights: control, exclusion, benefit, and disposition. You get all four when you buy land. The fact that you have to pay taxes on it is just a condition of the title because you continue to take from the community that secures the title for you and provides the public services and infrastructure that make it valuable.
    Garbage. Property taxes merely ask landowners to repay a fraction, usually quite a modest one, of what they are taking from the community. It is landowning that is evil because it forcibly strips people of their rights to liberty without just compensation, and gives those rights away to landowners as their private property. The unimproved value of land is the exact measure of how much more the landowner expects to take from the community than he will repay in taxes.
    The purpose of the Constitution was to cement forced subsidization of landowners. The Articles of Confederation, which the Founders had written to make the American system as free and just as possible, specified that all federal revenue was to be raised by taxing land.
    No, you are makin' $#!+ up again. All you have to do is pocket the rent as a welfare subsidy giveaway from the community. That's how the Duke of Westminster became one of the richest men in Britain without selling any land.
    Garbage. Most rich people have got that way by owning land, and they aren't living in cardboard boxes.
    Wrong again. It is very right because you are pocketing the additional land value those schools create. Parents have to pay landowners full market value for PERMISSION top send their kids to school. All spending on schools that does not come out of land taxation is a subsidy to landowners. LANDOWNERS are the ONLY ones who benefit from public spending on education, no one else.
    The most definitely take, because the only reason they pay so much to buy is that buying legally ENTITLES them to take.
    What is really shameful is that you scream about having to repay even a small fraction of what you are taking.
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are not able to refute a single sentence I wrote. Not one.

    And it is self-evidently YOU who show no interest in facts.
    ??? Are you serious?

    BWAHAHHAHHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!!!!

    You really think you can wave some "credentials" in the air and that will be an adequate substitute for relevant facts??

    You have offered NOTHING in the way of facts or evidence for your false and disgraceful claims.
    <yawn> You have provided NO sources for ANY of your claims, nor will you ever be doing so. But I don't mind schooling you. Here:

    http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gaffney_WHWASRSIPT.html

    It was written more than 20 years ago, but everything he talks about has progressed even farther today. Only when you have read it will you be able to claim to have even the slightest acquaintance with the effects of Prop 13.
    LOL!!! I'm not the one diverting by trying to substitute credentials for facts, sunshine. You are.
     
  5. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have no credentials. Thus you locate crummy statements no better than your crummy statements and pretend you presented facts.
     
  6. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    7,404
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ridiculous comparison. Land is not a person, and you are not depriving any person of their rights by owning it.

    No, you don't. Control: You have very little. Through zoning and other micromanagement techniques government tells you what you can and can't do with your land. Is it to be residential or commercial? Multi-tenant or single tenant? Owner occupied or not? Generally speaking, unless you happen to be 100 miles from the nearest grocery store in the middle of nowhere, you have no say over any of that. That's not control. Exclusivity (which is mostly true) is kind of the whole point of buying land in the first place. Benefit? Well, that depends exactly upon what you mean. Understand, my objection to property taxes is as it applies to your homestead. I'm not talking about a 300-unit apartment complex (though the renters get double-****ed because of them), an 80 story high rise in Manhattan, or a golf course. Your home. The place where you make your meals, watch the NFL, sleep, make babies, raise babies, and do most of the other things associated with that's "where you live". Should you desire to discuss commercial properties,I'm game, but my objections are much different.

    Finally, and probably most importantly, disposition. Completely untrue. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction, but where I live if you fall 3 years behind on your taxes, the authorities can, will, and do sell your house out from underneath you. And if the winning bidder (you're not allowed to bid) grabs it for the back taxes + $1.00, you get $1.00. Even if the FMV was $200k and you owned it outright. That is about as far as control of disposition as you can get.

    What services and infrastructure are you referring to?

    And finally we get to the truth. You cannot afford to own your own land, and your jealousy of those who can is what inspires your desire to have them subsidize your existence. I guess getting a tuition bill to send your kids to school is too much to expect, huh?

    I'm not taking anything. Damn sure sounds like you are, though.
     
  7. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    50,513
    Likes Received:
    10,738
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wonder if the guy you are arguing with has ever paid property taxes? In CA, we see the long list of things paid for in property taxes. Believe me, property taxes still pay for a lot of things the property owner has no control over.

    https://www.ocregister.com/2015/12/28/where-do-your-property-taxes-go/
    By TERI SFORZA | tsforza@scng.com | Orange County Register
    December 28, 2015 at 10:50 pm
    If you’re feeling cranky about having to pay thousands of dollars in property taxes just two weeks before the hectic holiday season, remember this: At least you’re not Donald Bren.

    The Irvine Co. faces the largest single property tax bill in all of Orange County, at more than $111 million a year.

    Disney is next, at more than $48 million.

    The curse of success? All told, property owners in the O.C. paid nearly $5.8 billion in property taxes in 2015, according to figures from the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office.

    So, who gets all that lovely money? Schools, right?


    Yes and no.

    Schools do, indeed, get the single largest slice of the property tax pie, but it’s not the majority – just 38 percent of the total, according to stats from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    The next biggest chunk goes to counties, which are essentially the local arms of state government. Counties run criminal justice, mental health and social service programs, and do vital administrative chores (like, er, collecting property taxes). They get 24 percent of the property tax dollar.

    Next come cities (18 percent), which provide police, fire, parks and the like; and redevelopment agencies, which aimed to eliminate urban blight (12 percent). See what D Gov. Jerry Brown did for CA next.

    Yes, the governor killed redevelopment agencies in 2011 amid great angst and gnashing of teeth, but this lets you see why: Redevelopment’s bite of the property tax dollar had grown quite large. And, like some insects, these extinct agencies can bite even after death: All redevelopment debt issued for the 60 years before redevelopment was killed must be repaid, so they’ll keep taking a big bite of property taxes for decades to come.

    Once those bills are paid off, the money will go to cities, counties, schools and special districts.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Does anyone actually believe raising the minimum wage would not help out with this situation?
     
  9. saveliberty

    saveliberty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You know a lot of elderly who get minimum wage? Do you also know a lot of people who can afford a home in CA or IL on minimum wage? You may just have to admit the problem is these states have too many social programs which force high property taxes.
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe a lot of elderly may find more market participants with that higher minimum wage.
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have facts and logic. Facts and logic trump credentials, sorry.
    Gaffney's paper is packed with facts, and it speaks for itself. You may consider yourself schooled.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is a perfectly valid comparison.
    Irrelevant. The earth's atmosphere is not a person either; but if someone owned it, and made everybody else pay him rent for air to breathe, as landowners make the landless pay rent for exercising their rights to liberty, they would all indisputably be being robbed by him. You cannot dispute that fact. You just have to find some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
    That is self-evidently false, absurd, and disingenuous. Owning land indisputably deprives everyone else of their natural liberty right to use it, liberty they would have if the landowner did not forcibly strip them of it.
    Yes, of course you do. Don't be ridiculous.
    False and disingenuous nonsense.
    GARBAGE. It only makes sure your use matches others' beneficial use and control of THEIR land.
    False and absurd nonsense. But more importantly, use restrictions are conditions of the title, so they are PART OF what you own. You knew when you bought the place that you could not start a coal mine there, or an abattoir. You could with equal "logic" claim that you don't have control of a car you own, because you are not allowed to drive it on the wrong side of the road, or over other people's lawns. It's just absurd and disingenuous garbage.
    Because you made it up. You have control that is compatible with others also having control of their plots, same as you have control of your car, and zoning more restrictive than that only applies to a very small fraction of all land anyway. In most cases, land use regulation INCREASES the value of the land by preventing nuisance uses nearby.
    I mean benefit: desirable effects on the owner.
    And from whence you access all the desirable publicly provided services and infrastructure that make it easier or more comfortable and convenient for you to do those things -- but which you want to deprive others of without making just compensation.
    Another bald falsehood from you.
    No, they will sell THEIR LAND -- which they have let you live on for three years -- out from under you. Keeping the taxes current is a CONDITION OF THE TITLE, which YOU KNEW when you bought the place. Why are you pretending you did not know it?
    More garbage from you. Disposition is for property owners. You lost the title when you failed to keep the taxes current, same as you lose your car if you don't keep up the payments.
    Roads, water and sewer systems, sanitation service, public schools and hospitals, police and fire protection, etc., etc. And most importantly, security of exclusive tenure and compatibility of nearby land use.
    I've been telling the truth all along. Haven't you? I think we know the answer to that...
    <yawn> I am a landlord. So much for your "truth."
    That is grotesque and despicable blame-the-victim filth. You sound like the slave owners who accused the abolitionists of opposing slavery because they couldn't afford to buy slaves of their own, and so were jealous of those who could. Such accusations were and are of course profoundly evil. Indeed, one of the most evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit by it.

    The FACT is, the productive are forced to pay taxes to fund desirable public services and infrastructure, and must then pay landowners full market value for PERMISSION to ACCESS the very same desirable services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for. The productive must therefore pay for government TWICE so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing nothing whatever. So in point of fact, it is EVERYONE ELSE who is FORCED to SUBSIDIZE LANDOWNERS, and I will thank you to remember it.
    <yawn> We homeschooled all four, and all of them went to internationally respected universities.
    That is a bald falsehood. You are forcibly taking from others their liberty rights to access the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. All of which they would be at liberty to access if you had never existed.
    I've taken your measure, anyway.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It wouldn't. All it does is shift land rent from commercial/industrial to residential areas. It doesn't make low-productivity workers better off.
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    yes, it does by making housing more affordable.
     
  15. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    7,404
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Precisely my point. You "buy" a home, even if you use cash, as I did, you don't own it, as you should. You never will. Neither will your children nor their children if it happens to stay in the family that long. And of course I knew that, and have for decades, but there is no alternative, at least not in the US. (I wonder, though, how many people even realize that once they pay off their mortgage they'll still owe rent to the state forever?) Homestead property should, in all cases, come with allodial title. Period.

    I turn 50 in a few months. Given the trends in property taxes in the US (and I'm fully aware it varies from State to State), the fact that I'm not wealthy (and disabled), that I'm going to be able to afford to keep my house 20 years from now just based on taxes? 30? Longer? Or do you think I should just cash out and use whatever money I've got left to live out my days in an old folks home, leaving my kids with nothing?
     
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    it depends on the property. if you have some space, you could try a starting a "cottage industry" to generate revenue from the property; hopefully, enough to pay the property taxes.
     
  17. BaghdadBob

    BaghdadBob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^ Did you make that b.s. all up by yourself? :roflol:

    The Articles of Confederation made absolutely NO provisions for federal taxation, and relied solely on the states to pay their fair share.
    http://www.ushistory.org/us/14b.asp
     
  18. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,768
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, cottage industries are not allowed in many areas. Second, where they are allowed, they have critical restrictions; for example cottage businesses may only be able to sell at a local farmer's market. Further, zoning laws have restrictions for residential, agricultural, industrial, etc. properties. I agree that cottage industries are a great opportunity for some land owners, however, there are some hurdles and limitations...
     
  19. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The reason these bills are so is because property values are so high. Why are property values so high? Desirability of location for either work or pleasure along with real limits on how much growth or housing can be introduced to keep up with demand. These prices affect people on fixed incomes greatly but there is no real need to keep older people in the same homes forever at the expense of watering down tax revenues to do so. But think about this for just a second. Any property tax is really a wealth tax by another name. For most of us, our biggest asset is our home and it is taxed every single year. But what about that family that has 100 million in stocks or bonds? Are they taxed every year on their wealth? No. In fact, they have convinced all of us that this wealth should never be taxed because its not fair. They argue that land and property should be taxed (always at a lower rate, never low enough my droogies) but keep your commie hands off my trust or holdings. So the question is, why do we put up with one wealth tax and exclude all other forms of wealth taxes?
     
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,768
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well...everyone, rich or poor, pays taxes on taxable earned income and/or capital gains. The person with $100 million is paying taxes on any gains they realize. And why should wealthy people pay a tax on their wealth when all other people do not? BTW...wealthy people also own land and property all of which are taxed. I suggest not worrying about wealthier people...
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I just explained why it has the opposite effect. It makes housing more expensive, commercial and industrial real estate less expensive.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, you should never be able to own other people's rights to liberty -- which is what a land title is -- without any obligation to compensate them for what you are taking from them. Owning others' rights to liberty is slavery.
    Good. Your children and grandchildren have no more right to own others' rights to liberty than you do.
    GARBAGE. PERIOD. Why do you think it is rightful to take from the community and not pay for what you take?
    I think you should always be mindful that by your exclusive tenure to land, you are stealing from everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.If you can't afford your property taxes, just take the unearned, tax-free capital gain the community has shoveled into your pockets, and seek accommodation in a location better suited to your needs and means.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is indisputable historical fact.
    Their fair share was to be measured by land value. The Articles specified, in Article 8, that the states would contribute to the federal treasury -- i.e., be taxed -- according to their land value, exactly as I stated, and you incorrectly denied.
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    higher paid labor can afford more housing. it really is that simple.
     
  25. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,261
    Likes Received:
    5,970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would see property taxes on primary residences eliminated entirely, so we're no longer a nation of renters (with the govt as the landlord). I would also see investment properties taxed more to reduce the dynamic of property investment that is raising housing costs, but the first thing is priority IMO.
     

Share This Page