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

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

  1. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many younger Democrats rather openly hate seniors.

    Property taxes are THE most regressive and oppressive of all forms of taxation. It literally is taxing a person's existence and the lower income the person it the higher tax rate compared to income they would pay. A person advocating paying for all of government by property taxes might as well put a prayer station in a closet to knell down and pray to the mega super rich elites.
     
  2. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Generally speaking, conservatives say that citizens are the priority and liberals say that government is the priority. Thus such conservatives will sacrifice government for the benefit if citizens, and such liberals will sacrifice people for the benefit of the government.
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess your rationale above trumps the success of Prop 13 in CA since 1978...
     
  4. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd say it's quite ironic for younger people today to openly hate seniors when they themselves are going to be seniors in the future...
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the point - they are being driven from their homes.

    There is another side to that, too.

    Here in WA we have no income tax(!) So, all we have is more regressive taxes such as property tax.

    The result is that there are improvements we would like to make, but we can't jack property tax due to the damage it would do.

    Here in Seattle we already have a population that can't pay rent and thus lives on the street. We want to reduce that, not make it worse. Driving up rent makes things worse, and property tax is one component of that rent and a component of the cost of home ownership.
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The real root issue in all of this is local, state and federal governments have become so expensive to maintain they are no longer affordable to at least 2/3rds of the American public!

    Today everything that moves, and does not move, is taxed! And on top of this we have deficit spending and mounting debt.

    We could remove all the wealth from the top 1% and this would fund the federal government for about ten minutes! So obviously a solution to out-of-control government spending cannot come from the wealthy. Sure they can pay more but so can everyone...the question is how much will people pay?

    Escalating property taxes are just one example of government cost run amok...
     
  7. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oh so I get it, you think old people like trump should never have to pay taxes
     
  8. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you're ignoring real world examples and instead call it diatribe, dispite my example disputing the VERY claims you're making that tax cuts will create jobs, yet I provide real world examples, factual events that occurred with recent tax cuts, and you simply dismiss and wipe them away as trivial examples and diatribe? see thats the difference between the two of us, you keep clinging to rhetoric, and I am clinging to real world examples where we see what happens versus what you think happens... maybe learn facts instead of fiction, and you'll have a little more to stand on than the rhetoric you spew which you can't even back up with more than "trust me"...
     
  9. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not at all, taxes should be as low as possible, but you can't keep your land if you don't pay your taxes... whatever they are
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not maintaining "government".

    It is maintaining education, transportation, our environment/air/water, our military adventures, our aged and disabled, etc.

    Please point to what you want to cut.

    Personally, I'd like to give the military budget a giant whack, because it's really hard to limit our adventurism when we have such massive superiority that we can do pretty much whatever we want. And, that superiority is MASSIVELY expensive.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's be rational about this.

    When we raise property tax we do drive people from their homes, for exactly the reason you point out.
     
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no they are not, they have always been required to pay their taxes, if you own too much land, can't afford your taxes, you need to downsize

    that is why many retire in other states, to avoid such taxes

    yes, I agree, there should be more government housing that is cheaper and lower the tax where it's too high, and raise it where to low... and close loopholes for the rich

    .
     
  13. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never said anything that lacked empathy for people who could no longer afford their homes as a result of its assessed value rising, I can understand how someone might not want to move, thats common sense to not want to move from someplace you like... but you seem to be missing the fantastic financial advice I offered this couple, where they could pocket $500,000 TAX FREE of profit from this scenario, and you want me to feel bad because they are choosing to pay taxes rather than capitalize the tax free money? you seriously want me to feel that bad for someone who has for what most is a once in a lifetime chance to pocket $500,000 TAX FREE???

    I think the problem is, like I pointed out original, you're an emotional person, and not a logical person, because any logical person would pocket the $500,000 TAX FREE... but I get it, you're upset that you STILL have not provided us a single solution to this problem, all you did was spew some rhetoric that doesn't solve the problem, all you did was say "its wrong they have to pay property taxes" but you fail to provide us a viable alternative to revenue sources for the government... why don't you give us your master plan to replace all the lost revenue for the government that you take away if we don't scale property taxes with assessed values...

    now is your chance, just like I posed to all the other little snowflake who whined, give us an alternative, provide me with your economic plan to address this, show me how you will shift the dollars and who will pay those dollars, prove to me you are more than just an emotional wreck throwing a temper tantrum, give us your plan to fix it... don't just tell me I'm a horrible person who lacks empathy, in my scenario they pocketed $500,000 TAX FREE, in your plan, well, we're still waiting for it... don't just tell me you'd cut the taxes, tell me how you would shift and change who pays that revenue... or do you want to cut all the government services because you think magically you can wave a magic wand and they all still work without the money that previously came from property taxes... (*)(*)(*)(*)ING GIVE US A VIABLE PLAN OR SHUT UP...

    P.S. and stop just telling me "I'd prefer a general sales tax" as a plan... cite a percentage you'd apply... show us you know the numbers, show us you have a plan to replace the revenue... you likely don't even know what the retail sales figures or county budget is for that area of the state... and you just keep spewing rhetoric without having anything factual to back it up... spewing rhetoric isn't a plan... LETS RUN THE NUMBERS, GIVE US THE NUMBERS TO PROVE ME WRONG (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)...
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that people have to pay their taxes.

    But, I think your last paragraph is the more important part. We have to be careful about raising property tax, because it directly affects people's ability to pay their own way.

    Obviously, the Trump real estate loophole is unbelievably stupid, but that is an income tax loophole.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow - you really are disgusting with your concept of as hom as an argument style.

    There are answers to the the question of who/how to tax to avoid damage to those who are already strapped. First, we can move to less regressive taxation methods.

    I don't agree with sales tax, because those with low income get ALL their salary taxed while those with high income get to bank significant amounts tax free.

    Income tax is far less regressive.

    And, we have to stop spending money on really stupid stuff. For example, paying more than a trillion dollars to kill bin Laden (and attempt to force a whole new way of thinking about government on a tribal people who aren't interested) could NOT be more stupid.
     
  16. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree income tax is a far superior way than sales taxes, but clearly I think property taxes are even superior to income taxes, as it provides a vast array of benefits for the poor and middle class to take advantage of while at the same time removing the power from politicians to manipulate the system for lobbyists and voters who will side with them in exchange for promises made, which is why the system is the horrific way it is today because all those nuggets are still there long after politicians are gone... I also agree we have a spending problem in government, we waste money on every dollar duplicating things that states could easily handle and already do in handle in many situations, we could realize a lot of synergies eliminating many of the top heavy waste, and after that we could dive down to "do we really need the government to fund studies on lactating lesbians" for example... I would suggest we could better invest that money into, well, almost anything... I also appear to agree with what I am suggesting is your desire to not be the worlds police force and butt into and cause many of the situations we now have to dig ourselves out of, but I could be wrong, I'm not sure thats what you meant about your trillion dollar bin laden kill message, but we're wasting so much in places we just don't need to be...

    but property taxes are the most efficient and least regressive, income taxes next when they are applied correctly in scale without all the deductions, and then sales taxes are at the bottom, the most negative for the poor, and one of the greatest cost of living increases on all americans... lower cost of living, and you empower the poor and middle class... far more than any gross abuse of the tax systems will correct, after government skims its share off the top before helping them...
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only two points on this one!

    The process for raising property tax is the same as the process for raising other taxes. So, I don't believe that moving tax methods changes the "power" of politicians. They can still make exceptions, tax types of property differently, and even attach quid pro quo - such as tax breaks for low income housing, energy efficiency, mitigation of impact of new construction, etc., that may or may not be effective and can be judged on an individual case basis.

    And, property tax on residential property (anywhere humans live) is massively regressive, directly impacting even those who can't afford property.
     
  18. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    see thats where I differ in opinion, I think when there is a single federal tax to screw with, and they can't jimmy around all the other hidden fees and taxes that pass like on utility bills, gasoline taxes, etc etc etc... people will be hyper-focused on that single revenue source, BUT since its a percentage and not just a fixed dollar amount, it WILL in fact give the government increases or decreases as home prices rise and fall... so I think its the perfect source that in times of good they have extra money to spend and in times of struggle it cuts back and forces them to control their budgets more... basically its a built-in economic tool to help recovery that requires no long drawn out votes and back room deals to add this or that for the other guy, its just automatic, and the best part is it only happens where needed, instead of blanket laws that give people who don't need the money a break... it would only help those in areas where it falls, not where it rises and they gleefully hold their hands out...

    there are just so many pros and almost zero cons in the property tax scenario...

    could they attempt to manipulate property taxes as you suggest, sure, as I got into a discussion with others they said they would see farmers be given a tax break in order to sway voters... but you see these instances will be VERY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN compared to the MILLIONS, literally MILLIONS of current deductions, exemptions, and other methods of tax manipulation with an income based system and all the hidden fees and regulations that come with it... so while I don't dismiss they will in fact attempt to create different rules, they likely are only going to be able to come up with a dozen different ways, thats it, it won't be the MILLIONS of screwings we have today with the current method... or do you dismiss that?

    residential property taxes is not regressive, its actually quite empowering... think of this... which income group has the highest density per household today already, the poor... and they live in quite inexpensive basically ghetto properties... so the taxes will not just be low, but they will be shared by more adults per household than the middle class, and far more than the upper class... so the poor will benefit the greatest from being able to split and share those taxes which already will be quite low since the properties they live within are assessed quite low in value... so rather than each person paying federal taxes on their gasoline for the car, rather than each adult paying taxes on their phone, electric, etc etc, its all split among multiple adults and lowers the overall federal burden... I realize they don't pay federal income taxes, but they pay a LOT of other federal taxes that when we add up those regressive forms, far exceed what they would pay through a property tax method...

    this will encourage folks to live in greater density, which ultimately means more efficient housing usage... it will give folks a reason to stay behind in the ghettos rather than moving up to nicer areas as quickly as they would in order to save more money, which means more money is circulating around those ghettos communities, which means those companies will need more staff to handle more business, which means more jobs and more money flowing around within those poor areas... see the whole plan builds upon itself and rewards from the bottom up... by allowing folks to knowingly delay movement and remain in those lower taxed communities, we essentially bring the economic wealth to them through their own pockets, lifting everyone in those communities up, rather than providing tax breaks to companies that build in there, but ultimately can't make much profit because there is no money circulating around, now we have created a method to circulate more money by allowing folks to remain behind in order to escape taxes... its basically what the rich have been able to do for decades, but now the poor have the power to do it too!!!

    (anyhow I can go on with more benefits, let me know if you're even reading this stuff to dispute it or be curious about it, I've typed this stuff out hundreds of times on this website and most folks never read my long winded responses)
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, property tax is within states, so one has to judge it there. And, there is just as much freedom in differentiating property tax there as there is with other taxes.

    Economic policy has show very clearly that austerity is the way to prolong a recession. There are several strong modern examples of this.

    And, pointing to ways that people can degrade their living conditions does not suggest there is less of a regressive aspect to property tax. It is still the case that people pay property tax even when they can't afford to own property.
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they're not both okay options.

    Paying off someone else's asset is insanity. Like, certifiably insane.
     
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So people who can't afford something, should somehow be allowed to have it anyway?

    If I buy a rare car, only to find that 20 years down the track parts are no longer made, so any repairs cost me 4 times as much as they did when I first bought the car, do you think I'm entitled to some form of legal exemption from paying for those parts? Just because I bought the car in good faith 20 years earlier?

    I'm going to assume you're joking :)
     
  22. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So compassion should be the decider when it comes to affordability? Again, I'm going to assume you're joking.
     
  23. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or ... those who 'can't pay rent' can be left to the choices THEY MADE, while we learn from it and make sure our kids don't end up the same way.
     
  24. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and under my method the federal government would piggyback the state, actually the city tax bills, which means we create another synergy using an existing system and simply adding another line item to it, savings hundreds of millions or billions that it would cost to create another government agency, in fact we eliminated the bulk of the IRS with my method saving taxpayers quite a few billion dollars, which either means less taxes or more government spending, I'm sure we both agree which one it should be...

    austerity is not what would take place, this almost tells me you didn't read my long message as I feared... because during an economic downturn as property values fall, those people would instantly receive tax relief, which means they would have more to spend which would help slow down any losses, and/or help turn around such a loss... if you're suggesting ANY government decreases in spending would automatically prolong a recession I think thats an outrageous claim to make, what you have to do is look at the specific sources of austerity that have an impact, and you really need to refocus spending to sources that create jobs, rather than expand government... for example, during recessions like we just had, we should have re-prioritized our spending from essentially high income jobs to low income jobs, what I mean by this is cut back on research and advanced development and shift a portion of that money to low income jobs like road building and construction... doing that one simple thing will drain the work force most often impacted first by a recession, the lower rungs of the ladder, and once you give them more spending you stem off the collapse and push things back upward... so while you may see some upper-middle class layoffs you would see a revival down the ladder at the bottom, which would help a recovery quicker and put the middle back in soon enough... so its more about the correct application of spending when it becomes an economic crisis strategy... and with construction, you can often spend less than you would have to for that comparable advanced research that provides little results... and like you suggest, there are modern examples of this... problem is, we have horrendous leadership that is ineffective at economics, I wouldn't expect politician lawyers to be good at it, its not their field...

    and I never said degrading living conditions makes it less regressive... see once again I fear you didn't read it all or understand it all... its less regressive because the amount of hidden federal taxes we collect per person, is unfairly levied on the poor currently, by erasing those and using a single source, the property tax, we now provide the poor a method in which they can divy up their share among others... and since poor folks live in the highest density living situations, it means they are able to divy their shares up among more people, which lowers their ultimate cost of living... essentially the more folks in a house, the less each persons share of tax is... do you understand? do you get how this ability to choose who and where you live empowers them now? they ALREADY live in high density situations, but now my method would give them an advantage over those who live in less dense households, which the middle class and upper class do... so the poor gain the most benefit being able to divy up their shares among more adults than the rest, because the rest live in lower density housing situations per household...

    for example... since you don't seem to understand or have read it...

    lets say its a 3% federal property tax...

    poor... lives in a property (or the equiv rental space) with an assessed value of $10,000 which turns into $300 in federal taxes per household... they have lets say 3 adults (and children) living in that household, which isn't uncommon for many low income households these days as they are multi-generational... thats $100 in federal taxes per person... once you add up all the hidden federal taxes, fees, etc etc, it will be more like $300 per person for a total of $900 per household... so they already get a tax break, but on top of that, now gasoline for the car is less expensive, phone, electric, etc etc bills are now less expensive one the federal charges are removed... never mind the fact they won't lose costs for things like tax preparation that would normally be "refunded" to them but instead hundreds went to H&R block, in addition to now interest rates they charge these low income folks for "instant tax return loans" that suck hundreds more off every single return they file...

    there are just SO many different ways we can lower cost of living with this method which ultimately benefits the most poor, and slowly moderates itself out in the middle class, and actually increases taxes using current property values across america on the wealthy who own not just one property but multiple properties... so its a great example of removing regressive taxes and fees that most folks never bother to think about or consider when they realize the poor might not pay "federal income taxes" but they do in fact pay a fair amount of "federal taxes" in these other forms...

    certainly you can't argue taking away the federal gasoline tax, isn't proof it removes regressive taxes, certainly you can't argue all those line item federal charges on utility bills, isn't proof it removes regressive taxes... and I could go on and on and on...

    basically this empowers poor people the same choice in tax control that the wealthy have had in their ability to be portable and move to lower tax environments... in this scenario the poor now can too, just like the wealthy always could... are you against giving the poor the same abilities as the wealthy to move in order to control taxes? most by default gain a benefit just from current reality of poverty and living conditions, now they can willfully make a choice to stack the deck even further in their favor... and once they come across money and want to move to someplace nicer, they can delay doing that, which will allow them to save even more money quicker, growing wealth in the lower classes far quicker than the current method does with its regressive dings to them... and we spread that additional income around those poor communities meaning more opportunity for folks... more wealth for the bottom at the cost of the uppers... but its not redistribution, its just efficiency, since we didn't take money from one to give to the other, we simply allowed one to keep MORE of their paychecks... thats fair and equal...
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No we don't. People CHOOSE to cash in on the massive increase in the value of their property, or they find the money to pay the taxes if staying is important to them. Or they stay, complain, and expect govt to cut them a personal break just because.
     

Share This Page