Posted on 05/14/2007 6:13:57 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s
When Melissa Nolen first saw the sky-high property tax bill for her new home, she got nervous.
The next year, when her homeowner's insurance doubled, she got mad.
These days, 29-year-old Nolen is trying another tactic: Getting active. She recently became vice president of the Broward County Young Republicans and is keeping a close eye on tax reforms being debated at the state Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Obviously, anyone living in Florida who feels that they are paying too little in property taxes is free to contribute "their fair share" over and above their assessment...
The local government will be pleased to accept their" conscience money"!
Let me back track on one comment. I don’t really think property taxes are the best way to get the revenue the government “needs”. But, there they are.
The real problem with the “fixed income” people is that taxes are simply too high period. It would be better if the taxes were on assessed value, or on a percentage of assessed value. That wouldn’t be a burden if, big if, the government’s need for revenue was based on what it should be. Fantasy, I know.
One thing that should be done, is not just limiting the increases in assessed value, but limiting the *tax rate* increases. In other words, limit the actual dollar amount increases collected to a maximum fixed rate. There is no good reason, with this type of tax, that the government’s take (in raw dollars) should not be limited every year. IOW, if the county collected $800 from me last year, it can only collect up to 3% more from me this year. If my value goes up to a point which works out to a greater amount, then the rates have to be adjusted downward to balance it.
As it is now, the city says hmm, Child’s house value can only be raised 3%, so we’ll just raise the millage rate 10% to make up for that.
Consumption taxes are probably a more rational way to raise the funds. IF they result in the elimination of property taxes. A person on a fixed income is naturally going to spend less, having less disposable income to work with. Thus that person pays lower taxes. It also means that if I want to be frugal and save my money, the government can’t penalize me for doing that.
Again, all of our “solutions” only address how to rein in a particular tax. Which is like a water filled balloon. Squeeze it on one end and the other end expands. They will simply just get the same amount of money somewhere else. None of this goes to the root of the real problem. Restricting the government’s appetite for power over us and access to our money.
How would you then propose we pay for basic services that are currently paid (in many states) through property tax?
I would assume that you would have an alternative.
I for one do not mind paying a fair and reasonable tax on purchases, including property. What I do mind is a graduated income tax that punishes my success, while allowing those of low income to receive money, from me, due to their position in life (it is OK that they pay zero on income, but no 'tax credits').
I do mind that I do not get a fair return on my tax invested. Thus when bridge tolls double in five years, while gas tax goes into the general fund, I feel I have a right to complain.
I didn’t feel guilty about anything. And I never felt I was paying too little. On the contrary, I was paying more than enough. I was just not getting screwed as thoroughly as my neighbor.
One of my points on this subject is that this is simply the state creating more class warfare and pitting citizens of different socioeconomic statuses against each other.
If they are screwing someone else, that’s OK as long as they don’t include me. Problem with that reasoning is, sooner or later I (or you) will be in the other group.
I don’t smoke, so I think it’s great to screw smokers. A smoker that doesn’t drink thinks it’s great to screw me because I drink. And so on, ad nauseum. It is not an accident that these taxaholics play us against each other while they merrily go on pissing away obscene amounts of all our money.
There's a ballot question tomorrow, asking if we want to institute a 1% income tax in exchange for lowering property taxes. I'm voting no. If it passes, we'll still have a property tax PLUS another income tax. And I'll end up paying more in total.
If they want me to support any change, it has to result in me either paying the same thing I'm paying now or less. They already spend PLENTY on schools (which I don't even use - my kids go to Catholic school). Until they change the SPENDING also, there will continue to be a TAX problem.
Another factor with moving from a local property tax to a state sales tax is distribution of dollars. The big cities are salivating over getting suburban money to pour into their rat-hole schools.
All good points.
I have mulled around, in my mind, another possible alternative, that being this:
You buy a house and pay, through the life of the mortgage, a fixed tax based on the value of the house. After a mortgage is paid off, the owner's tax is then locked in at the amount he paid in the last year (or average of last five). This then locks in the tax at, what should be, an affordable rate for the balance of his life.
if the owner chooses to sell, well, the game starts over, by his choice.
That is a fair and reasonable question. It has to be addressed, obviously. But (again my fantasy) in my opinion that should be decided after we determine what really are basic services. Right now, basic services are any damn thing they decide they want to spend money on. And nothing is ever a one time expenditure. "What were once luxuries are now necessities". The unwritten motto of government.
OK, gotta ask .... what’s the sq footage that 25K in property taxes pays for in NY state????
That idea has some merit. I think we agree that no matter how they are being determined, property taxes are way too much of the revenue pie the government is feasting upon.
One of the pluses of consumption taxes is that, in theory, money is being collected from those that can most afford it. And, again in theory, I have the option of consuming less in order to pay fewer taxes. The libs think that is a great idea for gasoline, right? Raise the price so I consume less? Well, why shouldn’t I be able to lower my taxes by consuming less?
First off, the idea that property tax pays for basic services is a joke. I just paid $8k in “impact fees” to hook up water and sewer. Now, what could be more basic than that ?
The proposal to eliminate property tax and replace the revenue with a small sales tax increase makes so much sense it will never succeed.
These bastards will pass “reforms” that change nothing and say they fought for “the little guy”.
Time to return to tar and feathers.
Two generations is indeed a long time, So what? I still pay sales taxes and State income taxes. The state makes far more tax money from me than they spend for me. It would be intolerable to pay sales tax, income tax, and sky high property taxes. It would force me out of my home.
As far as a “landed class”, I would much prefer to pass this benefit on to my children. With current real estate prices, it will be very difficult for them to get homes of their own. I want to give them every advantage. I have never been one of those who worries that another class has advantages that I dont. I recognize that there are people who inherited money and I didn’t. I don’t envy the rich and I don’t want them taxed into poverty. I want to learn how they became rich and follow their example.
“The home owner is in effect “realizing” the (supposedly) increased value of their property. Once the property is put back into the economic realm, to be “fair”, it should be taxed at the recognized value.”
Theres nothing fair about property taxes. Our govt wastes much of the money we give it.
Half right. It's WAY past time for the tar and feathers.
Impact fees are another shell game. In theory, all taxes are impact fees in the sense that we all impact society and the cost thereof, and our taxes pay for our impact.
Targeted taxes are crappola. If the government only provided the basic services it is constitutionally authorized to provide there would be no need of impact fees. More liberal weasel terminology promoting class envy. Yeah, yeah, let's soak the other guy. Payback for him having more than I do.
I can only laugh heartily at the fate of "struggling builders" in Floridum. Florida has had the worst version of illegal builder-appraiser-lender collusion outside of anywhere but a few places in southern CA and Las Vegas.
Fat chance. No newspaper is going to do that. The Leftist fishwraps in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter) don't want the people to know how badly the government is wasting their money.
Anyway, they are too busy writing stories sob stories that the government isn't spending enough taxpayer money on government programs.
When I bought my home in Kentucky last year, I asked the lender about the “appraisal”. He said the appraisal would essentially be the agreed upon price between me and the seller.
Basically, it fell to me to make sure that I was paying a fair market price for the home. Or at least that I was only borrowing an amount that equated properly to the market value of the house.
Of course, the lender was not too concerned about that because of the size of my down payment. It made their loan to me pretty safe as there was no way my home could not be worth more that I owe on it.
Nobody would be too concerned about the form of taxation (sales, income, property) if it were not for the amount. Changing the tax structure just moves around the liability of confiscatory tax levels.
Irregardless of the ethics of lenders/builders/appraisers, the home purchaser is the one getting the ultimate shaft.
The end user or final purchaser in reality pays the taxes (fees).
And the ethics, or lack of in the case of these groups, is not justification for the government confiscating money for redistribution to its chosen recipients.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.