Property taxes and the pope

Reg:

I doublt that many of your Regrats own homes.  Most of them still live with mom and dad.

myreply:

Would it be too much to ask what we are supposed to make of that?  I'm assuming it involves some failure on our part.

You take care of your property, and periodically upgrade it, and your taxes increase; but, the ne'er-do-well, next door, does nothing, and his taxes don't!

You do without, and save for your children's education, and you pay full fare for their college diplomas; but, the ne'er-do-well, next door, gambles, drinks and fritters away an income larger than yours, and his children get massive aid packages!

You own a home, and pay off the mortgage, drive fuel-efficient, inexpensive vehicles till they fall apart, use coupons, eat out inexpensively, go to Niagara Falls on your infrequent vacations, so you'll have a retirement nest egg and  then the nursing home takes your house and your savings and sticks you in the same room with your ne'er-do-well neighbor who never paid off his mortgage, or saved a red cent, because he was using its equity to finance expensive cars, exotic vacations, meals at 5-star restaurants, $1,000 suits, and you realize that the prize doesn't always go to the swift or the strong, but rather to the shiftless!

Then, you have the ultimate epiphany! The elusive answer to the question -- “what is the meaning of life?” -- hits you like a cement truck – EVERYTHING IS BULLSHIT!

Toadsly:

*And* you realize he’s not going to “get his” in the end, but that there will simply be an end, for both of you, and you will have remained true to yourself and your humanity.

The problem that I have with property taxes is that they don't tax real wealth, they tax potential wealth. Your property may double in value according to the assesment but it's not as if you can break off a chunk of your porch to pay for it. Your property has no liquid value whatsoever until you sell it, yet our landlord (the gubment) couldn't care less.

mugsy and Mr. Henry:

It’s not quite true that, when markets are functioning, property has no liquid utility until it is sold, but I absolutely do not believe that an average homeowner should have to go that route to pay the taxes.  It would be un-American.  

Hi Callsign;

When I made my comment I thought that there would be liqidity in the equity and a homeowner could borrow against that, but if that's what you are refering to then I agree with you, a property owner should not have to borrow against their property, essencially setting the government as their landlord. At the moment some have refinanced and now find themselves owing more than the value of their property, a potential disaster.

People on fixed incomes have very reasonable concerns that their property, which they own, will become unaffordable to them due to taxes.

I may be incorrect but I think that the majority of property tax goes to the support of schools, and I can see that as a community, with or without school age children of our own we all have an intrest in education. Perhaps property taxes should be replaced by income taxes, which tax real income rather than estimated value. There may be a better way than that, I don't know. Obviously an economically distressed area would have a harder time funding good education, but I'm sure there would have to be some equitable and better way to support this need without taking a guess at a home's value then pretending that the owner has that much and can pay the tax on it.

One's habitat (primary residence) should nt be taxed, any more than other basicnecessities such as food or clothing.

The property tax is is archaic,  intrinsincally and inextricably subjective, a costly nightmare to administer and litigate.

It is unfixable.

There is no reason that a prole, the retired, or unemployed should pay the same taxes as a dual income power couple simply by virtue of proximity.

I have long favored a revenue-neutral shift to the

income tax in toto. (NOT the sales tax, which would disproportionately affect lower income families.)

The income tax is simple, it is already in place, and it is consistent with progressive thinking.

It (taxataion based on income) would even provide entree to a fairer, more equitable means of distributing revenue for  public education.

It'll never happen.

Hi, mugsy:

Yes, that's all I meant.  You and Mr. Henry both said "until you sell it," and I only wanted to note that that wasn't quite the whole story.  

Wasn't arguing with/for or advocating anything.

Toadsly & callsigntourist -

"I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all."

Ecclesiastes 9:11

Davy Crockett said of taxes:

"There ain't no ticks like poly-ticks.  Bloodsuckers all."

That pretty much says it - don't you think?

Property taxes came into being in an agrarian society when the amount and quality of the land a person owned pretty much determined how much they could earn, and it was easier to assess than what they produced. It is really kind of archaic in this era.

On the other hand, if we eliminate property taxes and replace them with income taxes would that have the effect of lowering taxes on the wealthy, who are frequently able to avoid direct income taxation, and increasing the taxes on the middle class and poor?

I know no one is crazy about property taxes, but I've not heard a lot of folks who enjoy income taxes, either. At least with property taxes you can get over by living in a small, crummy house in a bad neighborhood. If that appeals to you, Reg, I got a house for sale....

Another benefit of property taxes, from the government's point of view, is that they generate revenue consistently.  Income taxes can swing wildly up and down with the economy and unemployment race.  Sales tax revenue varies, too; it's down now because people have cut back on non-essential purchases.  I don't know how a VAT tax fares in a downturn, but my guess is that it's similar to sales taxes.

If we are going to have property taxes, I'd actually prefer more frequent re-assessments that capture current values better. The millage rate must also be adjusted at the same time to ensure that the county, municipality and school district don't get sudden windfalls. I think it's easier to budget for small tax increases than suddenly having to scrape up the money for a huge tax hike.  

Also, it's a pity that Wettick couldn't order the other counties in the state to re-assess.  Allegheny is already at a tax disadvantage to some of our surrounding counties.  I do know people who claimed they moved to Butler County because they were tired of paying Allegheny County property taxes.  But their new houses are more expensive than their old ones, they had to buy a lot of appliances and other stuff to outfit them, and their commuting costs jumped.   It doesn't sound to me as if they saved any money in the long run.  I think they're using the property tax bogeyman to justify a move they made for entirely different reasons (bigger yard, newer house, etc.).

One of Reg's complaints that makes a lot of sense is that if you upgrade your home or property, thus improving the community, you pay more.

Don't cut your grass, pull off a few pieces of gutter, and tear a screen half out when the assessors are lurking, I say. A car on blocks will save you money, too, as will a loud dog chained in the yard.

You  see that stuff a lot in Sewickley, though.