Owing your home today is nearly impossible, but even if you did the ever increasing property taxes will bury you

Property taxes do hit retired people differently though. Taxing based on what the government says your land is worth instead of your income is absolutely meant to create opportunities for real estate agents and developers at the expense of the people living there.

It is kinda fucked up if retired are forced to move out from their house via taxation. Only ones who benefits are real estate companies

Its always guys that look like they extract peyote in their kitchen.

We could also just pay for education differently.

The real problem if that's the scenario is that his social security check is less than $400/month.

"I don't understand how inflation works and I'm blaming government for it"

You have to think more like Trump, LOL. The rich don't pay any taxes through the use of loopholes. Why should you. Slum lords should be forced to pay taxes, not working class schmo that needs a roof over their heads. Tax the slum lords.

I went and argued my taxes at my annual township tax assessment meeting. I was being assessed for a new deck and ramp. That added about $200 to my taxes. What I did do was move the wheelchair ramp out away from the house a bit for better winter time safety and repaired the steps, ramp boards, and railings.

Should I have been taxed for a whole new deck and ramp when I just did repairs and made safety changes?

you could have progressive taxes on wealth as well. there's a difference between having one house worth 500k and having 500 million in shares

UK has property taxes too and its pretty shit tbh. Council tax, there are bands based on what your house was worth in the 90s (yes really...) and generally the poor will pay a higher % of their income. I have a pretty small bungalow, 60m². One of the lowest bands and pay £1600 a year on a house that cost £230k. The most you can have to pay is £4200, beyond that point regardless of how much more expensive your house is the tax rate doesn't increase.

The original plan of the tax was a fixed rate per person. This among other things is why many people were keen on the idea of digging a hole so deep that we could hand Thatcher over to Satan personally.

This doesn't fit the narrative, but a lot of American states have lower effective property tax rates than European nations. There exceptions on both ends of this of course (like TX which is making up for a lack of income taxes).

People should look them up and compare European nations to major us cities and states. Europe ends up with not only higher income taxes, but also higher property taxes overall. And a completely insane financing method like having adjustable rate mortgages being normal, locked only for a period of 3 to 5 years before basically being forced to refinance. Little wonder that property ownership rates are generally so far below american ownership rates.

No system is perfect and people with means tend to find every flaw in them (and plant those flaws if they are wealthy enough). But people really need to remember that the grass is always greener because of all the manure.

If you live FULL TIME in Florida there is a cap on property tax increases. Many people in Florida own homes but do not live here full time and therefore are not eligible for this protection against increases. But they don't have an age limit that ends all increases.

Sorry how much??? I think we pay like 7/800€ property tax yearly on a house worth about 400k€... I thought US had low taxes.

I think it's the moral issue of having to cash out your own property to afford to live in something you built and already own

Lets suppose he lives in CA where the annual rate for owner occupied is 0.74%. His house would be worth approx 1.6 million dollars.

That's largely due to the property inflation from the tech sector and not consistent across the state. You could be in San Fransisco and see your land 10x in value as the city explodes around you or you could be at the ass end of Oakland or the rural east end and still live in a slum.

This guy could also be from Texas - in the exurbs of Austin, Dallas, Houston, or El Paso - and be looking at closer to 1.5-2% annual rates. Very possible he acquired some dirt cheap land in Beaumont or Bexar County only to see his $5k plot balloon to $100-200k over the course of 20 years.

Looking at my electrical bill is depressing. It's always power used x and then taxes that are the same as x plus fees. So using $100 in electricity means I pay $220 with over half being taxes and extra fees

Yeah, and property taxes result in more low density housing, as that increases the amount of tax revenue per person. High density housing means less revenue per person but the costs of services per person is still about the same. Sure theoretically, public transit is cheaper per person with high density housing, but realistically it isn't because nobody gives a shit about public transit in the suburbs.

Of course there's more costs overall because more suburbs mean governments are pressured to spend insane amounts of money on building and expanding highways. But it's usually a different level of government that builds the highways, so doesn't factor in the decisions to create more low density housing.

his point is that his income should have increased to reflect inflation, since his taxes did. it's actually obscene that half his check goes to property tax on land he's had forever, and people are talking down about him for it.

I'm not going to offer numbers and percentages but I would propose an overall cap on state property taxes. That would force the state to spend less or finally get rid of funding for things that are not providing the desired results. I would shift the percentage of property tax levied more on commercial than residential. And finally I would have a lower rate for those who own the house and live there as opposed to an owner who is renting out the house.

without property tax, all land would be owned by corporations whether or not they planned on using it ever….
but an individual living on a property shouldn’t have to pay property tax on their home.
the guy in the picture could have 100 acre of unused land he’s holding on to, too….

another fun one is some cities will seize your property for being $1 off on your property tax payments.

Outside of fantasy no that is just nonsense

You'd have to earn the money to purchase your off-grid setup in the first place.

TBH, property taxes could be a necessary evil, like only imposing them above a certain number of owned homes, to curb some companies buying up homes en masse to control the rent market, but I have a weird feeling they might not be the ones paying these taxes.

I don't think taxes negate ownership.

If you rent you need permission for every modification, every pet, even for something like planting a garden.

Ownership can be conditional; you can own a domain, but if you don't pay the renewal fee it can be taken away; you can own a car, but if you drive it without paying your registration it can be impounded; you can own a business, but if you don't pay your license renewal it can be revoked.

Owning something doesn't mean it can never be taken away or that you don't need to do anything to keep it.

Inflation is also not what the guy with the sign is taking into account in his complaint. He’s at least 40 years older in that picture than he was when he bought his property if he’s getting social security. The real purchasing power of whatever he paid back then is much smaller than the same number of dollars is now.

$5000 in January 1985 would be the same as $15,055.50 now according to the inflation calculator on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website

Also, it’s only every three years that he’s paying that much. Honestly, he’s not making the point he thinks he is.

We need taxes to fund emergency services and local government in general. The problem isn’t that taxes go up in dollar amount. The problem is that the 1% take everything for themselves, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs. Our pay and public benefits (like social security) don’t rise with inflation because of the actions of the rich.

The solution is so obvious, but we spend so much time arguing about everything but the real problem.

I wonder if there should be an exemption for those on Social Security.

That said, I don't know of a good way to ensure that an exemption like that wouldn't be abused.

But this is a bad idea.

Areas with high property value have higher quality schooling. Area with low property value have lower quality schooling. The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor.

Maybe education money shouldn't come from property taxes. Maybe corporations should pay for the education they require their workers to have visa corporate taxes

Then why do the schools in my town look like they're from 1970 and never updated. Over 10k in property taxes here.

Edit. I'm all for giving my property taxes to help make kids smarter but it doesn't seem like it's working

I paid off my house to avoid a 20k female flood insurance bill

Female flood sounds interesting

Dont forget increased pay for public servants who more and more act like they dont work for the public

Every 3 years due to forced upgrades or just old style deprecation over 3 years.

iPads don't deprecate in 3 years, nor require forced upgrades. They get nowhere near as much support as a regular Linux laptop (which is what schools SHOULD be using) and even less than Windows laptops pre-11, but if they're being replaced every 3 years, that's just policy, not an actual need. Currently the oldest supported iPad is going to hit 8 years since release in a month. The newest unsupported one is going to hit 9 in a month. So yes there's forced upgrades, but that's in like 8 years.

I work as a software engineer and most companies have had a minimum 3 year lifetime policy for company laptops. Reasoning being, after 3 years there's a higher chance of failure, and there have been enough advancements in hardware that upgrading might save SOME dev time. If it fails before 3 years, you get a new one. If you want to keep it longer, you can keep it. But if you want a new one, it should be 3 years old first. I don't get why school iPads need to be replaced this often, but I reckon there might be a lot more wear and tear and THAT could be the reason for a 3 year replacement policy. It's simpler than just replacing individual units every now and then.

Yea generally electronics is depreciated every 3 to 5 years. But I can imagine that after 3 years of children usage they are done for. That aside though, I think what you would be more looking for is a fair tax system.

What I think that the problem with local property taxes is that if a city relies on it too much to pay for everything then this causes too many issues. For a poor city this could mean that if they don't increase the taxes they can't afford basic school care which people expect. So they moved to riched areas who can provide that. Or they move because of the higher taxes. This in turn lowers the property value and decreases the taxes further. Which in turn increases the problem.

So I believe the educational budget should be provided by the central government so the same kind of quality in schools is given nationwide. This can of course be applied to other costs a city is making.

In addition to this I think a property tax should be progressive and link to your overall assets. If you just own one house and you don't have any more assets. Then why should you be taxed as much as somebody who owns a lot more (of course if the house is 2m and you're living of social security it is a different story. L

It doesn't make sense that cities need to increase property taxes every year though

Property tax revenue should be increasing every year by default without changing the rate simply because houses and properties increase in value every year typically

If property tax is 5% and the town makes $100,000,000, the next year if property value increases by 5% then their revenue goes up 5% as well to $105,000,000 automatically. Why do they need to also increase the tax to 6%?

when that guy was 25, house prices were probably in the $20k for a good house. If he built it, even cheaper. He's equating two things that don't really have relevance to anything but his memory

he's also not taking advantage of his options for being a senior on fixed income nor did he prepare for his retirement properly if all he has is social security

Yea, it's super location dependant. Generally the more rural the lower the taxes. But it also varies by state. States with low or no income tax tend to have higher property tax.

bUt tHeN nO oNe wOuLd bE iNcEnTiViSeD tO wOrK oR bEcOmE wEaLtHy

We would need to make sure all loopholes are closed for wealthy people just using investments to harvest losses... Trump only needed to pay $750 in taxes on his "taxable" income one year.

I work with one of those people. He's a dipshit. He thinks time is controlled by satellites and clouds are made by cloud machines. Also, the earth is flat and no one has left it because of the dome.

Or fire services.

That's the only issue with the opt-in taxes idea. But seriously, why should the rest of us be punished because they don't want taxes? Just have the destructive people who say taxation is theft, well...live with no government services, 100% dependent on corporations. Taxes should be opt-in. And that means, those who opt out will have no medical service, no public sewage system, no disability or welfare. We can let them have the roads as gratis, just to keep the peace. They will quickly realize how stupid and evil their system really is, when they are the only ones suffering from it.

🤣 the fact that he's lying about how much he pays in taxes to reduce taxes might be a clue.

I think he means that he paid for it, but never truly owns it when your forced to pay tax or they take your house away.

Old people tend to use quotation marks as emphasis.

This sign implies we want the federal government in our local tax policy?

Where do you read this implication from?

I'm really asking because I might be missing something, because my background is so different.

To me it reads like he thinks local taxes should work differently, either be lower, or be raised based on a different factor other than property value. But I can't see the federal connection.

Or it could be argued that the local county or city is taxing them so much they can't survive and they are essentially taking federal money even though they claim to not need federal money.

But hey I'm just a guy who knows plenty of people who look like this who advocate for better social programs. In most places that have county commissioners, their salary is paid by a percentage of the property tax. This may explain the increase in tax or the increase in allowing too many high density locations that have a property tax associated with them.

Yes, we can cover the resulting tax shortfall by increasing the tax on single mothers, first-generation low-income homebuyers, and renters.

Look at the result of California's tax policy (which was designed with aims similar to yours): an entire generation of young people will never be able to afford a home in the place they grew up in, while millionaire retirees get a huge tax break while making thousands renting out spare rooms in their massive houses on AirBnB.

These kinds of special tax carve outs sound nice in theory, because it seems like you are just "not taking money from old and disabled people", but that tax burden falls on everyone else, as does the massive distortion of the market. You are in fact taking more money from other people, who may be hurting even more.

And don't tell me, "We'll fund it by a tax on the rich". If that's your proposal, get that tax on the rich passed, and dole out the proceeds to elderly at risk of homelessness. Have it officially be budgeted, so that we can decide if keeping an elderly person in their $2.1m 5 bedroom home is worth cuts elsewhere. As of now, such policies are mostly robbing middle class young people blind.

at the primary residence up to .25 acres. Anything more than that should be taxed as normal. Credits should be non transferrable, as in if you're renting your landlord shouldn't be able to claim you for tax exempt status.

Did he go to city council chambers, or did he just vaguely go into the city itself and start arguing with people?

You certainly can argue about your property taxes and win concessions if you have a good reason. It's not hard to do. You just need to get off your ass and attend the annual tax assessment meeting.

It's why that annual meeting exists.

If tea is to tea party, are you suggesting that we throw a house party?

Which induces a lot of absentee landlordism, as property is held in trust and financialized rather than being bought/sold at the retail level.

Where the fuck did they live? What was the home value and tax rate? That's insane.

That's the part that upsets me the most. If you save up the money to fix up your house, the gov charges you more for it. How aggregating. Makes me not want to "own" property.

Depending on area 40k property tax means a 3-4M house. Poor rich people!

Agreed. I'd vote to drop property tax for those over 65 and under a certain income limit.

How big is his house? How much is it worth now?

Property taxes are based on the assessed value of the land. So if you bought vacant land in the 1970s, improved it with a home, and then lived in it for the next 50 years, you'd see a piece of land that sold for several thousand dollars accrue to hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this guy is living in Texas, he's likely paying 1-2% of the assessed value of the home, which could easily be north of $2-4k/year. That's on land that was practically being given away half a century earlier.

Who does he think maintains road networks and all the other infrastructure he relies on?

The tax rate is fully disconnected from the cost of construction/maintenance. So if my house accrues from $50k to $200k over the course of ten years, I don't see 4x as much construction/maintenance of my local infrastructure. I just see my tax bill go up 4x while my potholes continue to go unfilled, my lines unburied, and my flood control underdeveloped.

And that's setting aside the habit of municipal governments to invest in "improvements" (sports stadiums, convention centers, police surveillance that's focused around corporate properties, twelve lane highways that induce demand rather than improve traffick flow) that benefit private industry over public welfare. City and state officials serving larger and larger constituencies routinely become disconnected from lay voters and increasingly complicit in graft and other kickbacks, as elections revolve more around partisan affiliation than any actual domestic management agenda.

There is a very real and meaningful disconnect between what politicians do at the municipal/state level and what residents actually demand at the retail level. If this guy was perched in a penthouse overlooking Cowboy's stadium, you could reasonably tell him to fuck off. But I guarantee he's not.

allowed to take surplus tax,

He's likely towing the Libertarian party line. We'd be fine without these taxes and all that government waste.

When you start asking about public services, they start, slowly, carefully re-inventing taxes while downplaying corporate greed while putting themselves in a decision-making role where they get to decide what is right for everyone else.

I'm sure he can hardly afford to live in his ancestral home. That SS he paid into all those years doesn't hit the same as a paycheck and might stop altogether soon. If you don't squirrel away your own retirement, you have to make concessions.

While these are fair questions, I think it's a reasonable stance to take that you shouldn't literally get taxed out of your home if you come into poverty, which unfortunately can include Social Security recipients. I know we all need to pay taxes and contribute to society to the extent that we're reasonably able to, but I'm not so sure this is the best way to make it happen. For property beyond your primary residence, sure, but for your only home, I don't super like it.