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

Above is an illogical statement? If a business has more cash at their disposal, no matter the reason for this cash, that business can do more research, more marketing, expand, enter new markets, and YES hire more people...this CANNOT be denied!

 

Owning a home is a lot of financial aggravation if you are not receiving help from another income.

 

Owning a property and renting/leasing a property are both serious contractual issues in one's life. Therefore, both options require careful approach. Each person will choose a path that works best for them...

 

see property taxes do rise and fall, the fact yours have never fallen means you fit into one of two categories, either you're someone who's assessed value has increased which means you have more potential wealth if you capitalize on it, or you have jerks for politicians who jack your percentage up slightly year after year after year... because there are many places in this country where assessed values fell, and taxes went down, since the tax percent, is just a fixed percent, it don't change unless politicians change it, but as properties rise or fall in value, so do your taxes...

why do I prefer property taxes?

people have the ability to move into lower priced properties if they feel taxes are too high, OR, what I suspect is more likely, density per household will increase, essentially meaning that lets say $3000 tax bill split among lets say two working adults or $1500 each annually, might now be split by say 3 or 4 adults... meaning as density increases, tax burden decreases on them... I expect this to happen mostly among the poor and middle class as they are able to control the taxes far better than the current methods we have which many americans have to pay in order to do their taxes, which I think is just a shame...

why else you ask... well during times of recession, we have an immediate tax break built in, during the last recession, assuming my method of property taxes only were in place, it means every american would essentially have gotten a tax break if their homes values decreased, which would give them more spending power from that tax savings... keep in mind, during the recession, it was the poor who remained relatively the same, the middle class who lost the most value, and the upper class really had no negative effects to be honest... so in this instance, the middle class would have received an immediate tax relief and since they are the engine of the consumer economy they would have helped recover it far faster and greater than the government attempting to pick and choose where and who got the money, in this instance, the correct group would have gotten the savings every single year the economy was bad... lifting us up far greater and quicker with ZERO political intervention...

why else... well what happens when property values rise dramatic quickly because you purchase a home in THEE place to live... well it would help quickly moderate that rise in value and purchase and slow down this intense run... and thats not a bad thing... in some cases it will convince folks, its time to sell and capitalize on the gains and get out because we can't afford the taxes, or it will convince once again higher density to remain, or it will encourage more efficient use of land and building within those areas, instead of a bunch of sprawl and only homes, you might see a smattering of more apartments or high density buildings which will help spread costs among all in society... this is important because creating density lowers cost of living, for city services and the like... neighborhoods will be more compact and dense and I expect to see a lot more green space for parks and the like...

I could go on for hours on the pro's which far outweigh the cons... but mostly, it takes away power from politicians to manipulate the tax code for their political power, and it returns that to the people, who now ALL have a choice in their taxes, and can easily manipulate and change them merely by packing up and moving someplace cheaper, or by sharing that space with others in order to share the tax burden... it means people can delay moving up to greener pastures in order to not just make a down payment, but pay for the entire place itself... it means these people staying behind in poorer communities will keep economic spending within those communities, which will lift up all those remaining in them as more money is circulating around in them, it will finally attract a LOT more business to those areas since there is now more money within those communities... which guess what, means more jobs for those folks, which means less poverty for those folks, which means we all move up a little better and quicker through our choices... but make no mistake, those who want to live in excess and push the limits, they will finally be punished for living beyond their means... its the great equalizer... the wealthy will pay the lions share, and the middle class will be able to control theirs, and the poor will finally have a true chance at moving up to the middle...

 

they "COULD" do all that, but nothing makes them do it, thats the problem... we saw many of the recent tax breaks go to not hiring, but to padding stock prices in this last recession... I mean do you want to dispute that? do you really want to argue the tax breaks and benefits they got in the last two recession bills created those jobs? it didn't, it helped the stock market recover as employers just kept laying people off, so this notion tax breaks equate jobs, is just a false rhetoric spewed all too often... and like I cited in my original message that you failed to quote, was under what conditions a tax break effective creates hiring, but thats not the conditions we were in, we were in an economy that wasn't spending because people were being laid off, we weren't in an economy where high taxes and regulations prevented expansion and thus hiring... you need to really understand the EXTREME difference and importance in those two scenarios... in the 80s it was the right thing to cut regulation and taxes, as we were faced with companies who couldn't expand because of them, but in this last recession we were simply faced with less spending, employers don't hire when people stop spending...

seriously, think that through dude... don't be a parrot for the rhetoric, understand what was happening, and why tax cuts were ineffective... you'll be far better off when you do...

 

where did you come up with this notion I don't understand people who rent are paying property taxes, you realize I made a lot of my wealth as a landlord, I likely understand this FAR greater than you do... I pass along every single increase every single year to the renters, I never paid the property taxes, my tenants did... so please stop trying to accuse me of saying things I NEVER said... renters are one of the people who benefit from higher density living situations by design, so they would be the ones who would receive the greatest benefit in my scenario of property only taxes... they would reap the rewards of those property taxes being split among the most people for the space and assessed value each building takes up... its clear YOU do not understand things as I have been explaining, this is only more evidence of your stupidity...

if you weren't so stupid I wouldn't have to point it out for you... not only can you still not cite what specific percentages you would tax people at, but you can't explain the impacts that would have on different levels of people, you just keep spewing the rhetoric because you think its right, despite you never actually running the numbers to see the impacts on people to determine if its positive or negative... well I've done the math, and so have countless other non-profits in the world, and sales taxes are thee single most regressive form of taxation on the poor, it eats into a larger portion of their money than other forms they can control... when you have to buy common every day things to live, its a tax on cost of living, and once you raise cost of living for the poor, you price them out of affording many other things in life, including moving up...

so just stop being stupid... prove me wrong... run the calculations... shut me up with your math... but you can't, because you've never run the numbers, you just spew rhetoric...

P.S. this is like the 4th or 5th time I've asked you to show me the math and prove me wrong... you still have not done so... maybe its time to put up or shut up...

 

The taxes on utilities and the like are because there is no accountability. They waste tax money and want more, they just find more ways to steal it from people. They're taxing shop labor rates now here.
I'm all for lowering the cost of living but that ain't gonna happen, is it? Jap cars made in America without union labor should be cheaper but they are not. Carpentry labor has been cut in half b/c of mexican labor, but no one wants the price of their house to go down, do they? Those are the two biggest expenses. When I mention lower tax and regulation I am referring to small business. As far as a sales tax rate, 3% would be plenty. The state increases the tax money b/c people are making less and/or the money is being wasted.

 

Your logic is sound and your advice is reasonable, in fact, I used that same logic to cash in on a house we bought in 99 for 700k, sold it in 2005 for 1.6million, took the 500k tax exclusion and put 850k down on our next house. Taxes in California are 1% of sale price and never go up really if the house increases in value but it can go down if the assessor revalues the house at a lower rate. I think we have it figured out here. As for Texas, the state is set up to protect high income earners. You can buy a million dollar house almost anywhere in Texas that is essentially a mansion, 4000 to 8000 square feet is what that gets you, fit for a king. Since there is no state income tax, anyone making a lot of money only has one state tax bill, the property tax which is around 2%. All other taxes are usage based and regressive. A toll is harder on the poor than it is on the rich, same with sales tax. Say you make 300k per year in Texas and own that million dollar pad. You pay nothing on the 300k, 20 grand plus any local bond on the house. Throw in 50 bucks a month for tolls, another 100 a month in sales taxes and your total bill to live in the state is 21,500 or less than 7% of income. Yet say you make 50k, own a house worth 150k. Your property tax is 3k, you use the roads as much as the rich guy so that is another 300 per year, sales tax is about the same as well. Now your bill is 4800 or almost 10%. Now do the math at incomes over 1 million especially passive incomes from oil and gas that get preferential federal income tax treatment. Lastly, if you own property in Texas and put a goat on it or fenced it for deer, you can drop your tax rate too.

 

so you think cost of living can't be controlled, so lets just give up, you realize, thats why they keep raising taxes and all these hidden fees that screw the poor and middle class over right? they know we won't pay attention to just a few cents here and there, and over time its becomes dollars and expands to other things, like we'll soon be getting another "fee" added to all internet connections, on top of whatever cable services you may have with the same company, they'll soon bill you two federal fees... this is also why I want property taxes, because they won't be able to hide that, it will be THEE single largest issue come EVERY election, and will force politicians in all levels, to be extremely careful how they handle tax increases, since EVERYONE will be informed since they won't be able to hide it like they do with all these other sources...

so you think a 3% sales tax would do what? replace all other forms of taxes, or do you want this in addition to current sales taxes? do you even know what retail sales are annually in america? we're expected to hit $5 TRILLION in retail sales in america, which means a 3% sales tax would only get the government $150 BILLION out of a what $4 TRILLION dollar budget? so uhhhhhh you're a little short... let me know how much more in sales taxes you want to jack that up or what other taxes you want to keep... see the problem with just putting numbers out there without looking at the data... the rhetoric sounds good until we apply math to it, then we find out we're still screwed...

look I'm not trying to bust your nuts, I'm trying to show, people put forward solutions they've never actually worked out, and want others to accept it as fact or a good idea, when clearly your idea just came up short for about 97% of the annual budget... so all you did was fund 3% of the government... you see why I argue with folks so much?

P.S. and understand, I'm not disagreeing with you about government wasting money, by design they waste roughly 10% just funding themselves to exist, just to exist!!!! and thats before they spend a penny of our money back on us... so don't think I am defending their spending, but I recognize the plans people say will work, almost never even come close to working, because nobody has ever sat down and really looked and worked the numbers, they just recite rhetoric someone else said...

 

I'm just racking my brain here, trying to understand why folks do not want this couple to sell their home and pocket the $500,000 TAX FREE of income, no other time in your life will you get a chance to pocket $500,000 TAX FREE... and the fact folks can do this every 2 years if they are that lucky, but surely every 15 or so years if they really put effort into looking for hot spots and growth, they can take educated guesses and build up an extreme amount of TAX FREE wealth in a 45 year period before retirement... and all those other years they are waiting, that TAX FREE money is working in other investments making them even more money...

but thanks for finally being one of the few people who understand the simple math, its not complex at all, its just basic grade school math... and its hard to believe folks think I am trying to help the rich with this method and harm the poor, as I explained with density the poor could benefit the most since they already live in high density housing situations taxes would be split even more among each other, and the middle class can delay buying that nicer place to save more quicker... I dunno I guess thats the difference in dealing with emotional investors versus logical investors, its just straight forward and such an easy choice for me to make, realize the gains, pay no taxes... simple...

 

First of all, most people don't really take the time to get the details especially when it relates to tax policy. This is how the conservatives sell the masses on tax cuts, they expect ignorance and are returned in favor. Secondly, almost every red state is designed to run well for the rich, that is at the core of all conservative ideology and economic theory. Lastly, there is a mythology about staying in one home for most of your life. That is gone for most folks and to be honest, did not even occur for our parents either with some exceptions. States must get X from their citizens. They will get it from you one way or the other.

 

Where did I say the sales tax would replace everything? You asked what the SALES tax should be and I said 3%.
We have the highest gas tax in the region which is supposed to cover the cost of the highways, yet they STILL approved a toll lane to Charlotte. I don't doubt this only the beginning with toll roads. They'll add more once people get used to it. Problem is, they won't reduce the already high gas tax. So we'll be stuck with both, which is much worse than their 'promise' of no toll roads if we approved the high gas tax several years back.
I see ads on tv about the poor NC teachers who are underpaid. What about all that lottery money that goes for education on top of the taxes? They're WASTING it! And now they want more.

 

you're the one who said a national sales tax would solve the problem and should be the preferred method... so I clearly asked you in my previous message, since I just showed a 3% sales tax on retail sales would only raise $150 billion of the $4 trillion needed, what other tax methods will you leave in place, or adjust? are you just adding a sales tax, without reducing any other taxes? are you in fact attempting to make sales taxes the only source? what taxes will you lower since you dislike government spending and waste to offset to new revenue you collected through sales taxes? you see my point, you're exceptionally vague on details because you're spewing rhetoric and you've never worked through the math... but like I said, convince me, so what taxes would you lower since you raised sales taxes, and sales taxes don't cover everything, so what taxes will you leave in place? this is your concept, this is what you told me was better than mine, so prove it, don't just keep feeding me one-liners because you clearly got caught not knowing the true retail sales numbers and passed this 3% tax off as the solution, but the solution to what, what are you lowering or is this just another new revenue stream for the wasteful government you're upset about, to spend and (*)(*)(*)(*) away also? how did you improve the lives of poor people if you raised taxes without citing what other taxes you would lower that would benefit them?!?!?!?! you see my whole point, you just made (*)(*)(*)(*) up and now when we're attempting to prove it works better than my concept, you can't even answer simple questions or demonstrate it improved anything... way to waste all our times... next time just don't respond...

 

I understand your comments but no matter I disagree with you; there should not be a mechanism that can remove people from their property simply because they can no longer afford property taxes. People who buy property, pay off that property, and have a desire to live on that property until they die, should not have all of that terminated simply because they find property taxes are not affordable...IMO this is unconscionable...

 

You are creating a non-problem! More cash to a business is ALWAYS a benefit in so many ways. And yes a company can decide to give all of their profits to shareholders but this type of company cannot last...cannot be competitive...and will eventually disappear.

You have no idea how many jobs have been lost or created due to tax breaks etc...no idea whatsoever.

You must believe there is some kind of conspiracy within corporations when in fact 99% of them are focused on keeping the doors open, satisfying shareholders, remaining competitive...this is impossible to achieve if all profits go to shareholders!

 

and you still have not offered any alternative where you can validate your numbers and demonstrate you replaced the sum of money you took away by removing the property taxes, or shall we say the rise in assessed value and thus the increase in taxes due... you're still lacking all the details to replace it... you just tell me its bad...

 

see first you said something couldn't happen, now you're acknowledging it could happen... you see how I have a problem believing anything you say, because you're already walking back things you said in a way that was indisputable and now you're saying, well okay so it can happen, but that business would never last if it didn't magically give that money back to the consumers... my friend, how do you explain Apple, and the hundreds of billions its sitting on for shareholders, despite tax breaks, it grew revenue and still didn't lower prices, in fact it raised some of its prices... so once again you see the problem, thats just ONE major company, there are thousands more who did the exact same thing, they didn't hire people during the downturn, they took the tax breaks, they gobbled it up for investors, and are still around today and quite viable and in fact are thriving, and still sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars over-seas...

so once again your facts are instantly proven incorrect and once again you're going to have to start walking back this one... see the problem with all your facts and claims, they instantly get destroyed and you keep telling me new things I have to listen to then as a result of the destruction of your previous statements... how many times are we going to do this, until you finally come up with someone I can't do that to, I have a feeling this is going to take a very long time...

I never said all profits go to shareholders, where do you keep coming up with these wacky statements and claims, are you reading what I say incorrectly... or are you intentionally attempting to distort what I say because I have so handsomely destroyed the complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you've been spewing on this subject and your numerous attempts to tell me I just have to believe what you say, then I present real world examples that dispute everything you just got done telling me I had to accept...

I get it, you don't honestly know what you're saying, and you're looking for a graceful way out and I just have to "trust you" that you're right, despite me constantly blowing up what you say... fine... we'll pretend the economy just magically works the way you think, and all the examples I destroyed, don't exist... go to your happy place now... its okay...

P.S. apple has been raising my dividends over the years, not cutting them, do you think that means they're giving more or less back to consumers if they're giving more to me a shareholder? I'll give you a hint, the answer is they are giving more to the shareholders... but I'll give you a chance to answer that, I mean I gave you the answer but maybe you'll still decide to get it wrong I don't know, so far you seem to want to do nothing by deny deny deny even when I confront and challenge your claims, like I just did again above... tell me I'm wrong again and I just have to trust you, oh wait, I forgot, you're supposed to be going to your happy place, where nobody dares prove you wrong... sorry... my bad!!!! back to your happy place... turn up that micheal bolton music, that dude can wail hey...

 

The point being debated here is about how to generate X amount of revenue given a tax policy. Conservatives seem to deny that any government regardless of size or political identity deserve to spend X. They categorically refuse to say any level of government is right or efficient, this is their orthodoxy, this is their ideology speaking. Given the reality of this absurd position, they use it to say that taxes are always too high and unfair.

Liberals on the other hand approach the same issue by stating the obvious. Governments need X and tax revenues should meet those at the state and local level. It would be nice if federal receipts matched outlays but there is no requirement for the issuer of currency to balance their books when they have the power to create money at will. An effective argument for better management of X is something all of us can support. Lets focus on that and then find out where to get the money if needed.

 

When Prop 13 passed CA was one of the best states to live in. Now it is one of the worst. Prop 13 forces the people and governments of CA to give large, growing, and unsustainable subsidies to landowners. CA committed suicide when it passed Prop 13, which is the greatest public policy blunder committed by any US state since the Civil War.

So the community has given your parents over a million dollars. Remind me again of why we are supposed to feel sorry for them, why they should not be expected to repay any of what they have been given...?

They should have sold it decades ago. If they can't afford to pay for what they are taking, they shouldn't take it. Not a hard concept.

 

What alt-left universe do you live in?

If it weren't for Prop 13, California homeowners would be facing the same financial burdens as the people of Illinois.

Is that what you want? People to be forced out of their homes because they can't afford the ever increasing property tax????

You have absolutely no compassion.

The community didn’t give by parents anything. Where did you get that stupid idea?

They don't want to sell. They can afford to live their because of Proposition 13. Not a hard concept for even someone like you to understand.

 

if one can not afford their taxes, they need to sell and buy something cheaper

 

Any human with an ounce of compassion and empathy with a 3rd grade comprehension understands that allowing escalating property taxes to force people out of their homes is a problem! It's clear that this is a problem without knowing a solution!

Regarding a solution I have told you and the world that I prefer a general sales tax to replace property taxation...

 

Or maybe elderly widows should be executed for the good of the government? After all, everyone exists solely to serve the government as each our assignment and purpose in life.

 

Not interested in your diatribe...I gave you all the reasons that benefit a company when they have extra cash and your response was they'll just keep the extra profits and no jobs will be created. You go to the dark side and conspiracy while I stay in reality...enjoy your trip...

 

Definitely all people who can not afford to pay property taxes either on their home or via their rent should be put out on the street and live in abandoned buildings and cardboard boxes. Anyone who does not benefit the government should freeze or starve to death for not paying for their existence.

Most economists say that whether a person has an economically viable old age or not is dependent upon whether they own a paid for home. But that is BS. The government should seize every elderly person's home via taxes and sell it so the government can pocket the money. Old people do not contribute to government and therefore should not be tolerated anymore.