I just luv gubmint

[Ingomike]

Everyone benefits from it. Floodwater management is not a rural issue nor a property owner issue. Regardless of where you live, at least around here where it's flat, you're benefitting from water management in places miles and miles from your home or place of business.

I can assure you that those that do not own property would not give a crap about drainage. Maybe you should study some history of the state and how the woods were cut down to farm here. Drainage is all property owners issue. What your neighbor does can affect you positively or negatively.

You were just all over the belief that apartment dwellers do not pay their fair share for what they get now you want others to pay for drainage only property owners benefit from? BTW, apartment dwellers do pay for county drainage in their rent to the landlord which passes it on to the county with their property taxes…

I have a creek on my property. Matter of fact I bought that otherwise worthless parcel specifically and only because it had a creek on it. Therefore mother nature does a fine job of handling the rainwater here so where it my discount? Why should my rate be higher when I spent money to own natural drainage on my ground? Why am I paying at all?

The water from you property must go somewhere when it leaves your property, That is why you pay, it is not a parcel by parcel thing. It is a system…

 

[firecadet613]

We're at over 100 posts of people complaining.

Has anyone posted a viable alternative to property taxes?

 

[phylodog]

We're at over 100 posts of people complaining.

Has anyone posted a viable alternative to property taxes?

Pick one of the 12,419 existing means of taxation.

People should have the right to own property and be secure in that ownership. There is zero shortage of tax methods available.

 

[phylodog]

I'm sure the citizens of Indianapolis wouldn't be the slightest bit inconvenienced if White River busted its banks and left the entire county short of Crown Hill Cemetery underwater.

 

[patience0830]

So a subscription police & fire department? They only come for those that pay them? (I realize that some FD do charge some fees, but not what it actually costs.). Based on responses here few have any idea what county government does.

I like the subscription model.

 

[Ingomike]

We're at over 100 posts of people complaining.

Has anyone posted a viable alternative to property taxes?

This causes two of our bedrock beliefs to collide. I personally wrestle with this, I also believe folks should understand the conflict so I bring up the side not represented in the discussions.


This capsulizes the issue here:

What makes this a tough issue is this brings two bedrock issues many of us a passionate about into conflict.

First we believe property should be able to be owned without further payment.

Second we believe each should pay for what they use.

The struggle is, we cannot have it both ways on this.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So a subscription police & fire department? They only come for those that pay them? (I realize that some FD do charge some fees, but not what it actually costs.). Based on responses here few have any idea what county government does.

I don’t know if it’s still in service but there was a town near where I grew up in Tennessee that had a subscription fire service. If you weren’t a subscriber, your house burnt.

ETA: I think it was this county. As you can see some people don’t want to pay and then get mad because they didn’t receive a service they hadn’t paid for.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Weeks after firefighters let a house burn down in Tennessee's Obion County, it has expanded a controversial policy that says fire departments must require residents to pay a subscription fee for protection

content.time.com

 

[phylodog]

Second we believe each should pay for what they use.

What we believe and what is reality are completely different. If tax dollars were either collected or disbursed appropriately this would be a very, very different country.

 

[KLB]

This causes two of our bedrock beliefs to collide. I personally wrestle with this, I also believe folks should understand the conflict so I bring up the side not represented in the discussions.


This capsulizes the issue here:

What makes this a tough issue is this brings two bedrock issues many of us a passionate about into conflict.

First we believe property should be able to be owned without further payment.

Second we believe each should pay for what they use.

The struggle is, we cannot have it both ways on this.

There is no correlation between appraised property value and use of government services.

 

[Ingomike]

I don’t know if it’s still in service but there was a town near where I grew up in Tennessee that had a subscription fire service. If you weren’t a subscriber, your house burnt.

From a practical perspective I wonder if one could get insurance on that and what it would cost? I know insurance goes up with no hydrant near, then higher if a volunteer department. I bet the subscription would be way more than the tax but I could be surprised…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

From a practical perspective I wonder if one could get insurance on that and what it would cost? I know insurance goes up with no hydrant near, then higher if a volunteer department. I bet the subscription would be way more than the tax but I could be surprised…

You’d probably be shocked to learn how many people don’t have homeowners insurance at all. A tornado tore through my old neighborhood 15 or so years ago. It was pretty apparent which homes had no insurance because those lots were empty for a long time.

 

[Ingomike]

There is no correlation between appraised property value and use of government services.

What does appraised value have to do with any of this? If you mean assessed value, it is the measurement the legislature put in place to determine the portion of the cost of services to the property each must pay.

How do you suggest they determine how much each property owner pays? If we have the system should a owner with twenty acres, a 6000 sq ft house, quarter mile concrete driveway, and a 60‘ x 80’ barn pay the same as a owner with two acres, a 1500 sq ft house, a 100 foot gravel drive and a two car garage or should they pay based on what they own?


If you want to do away with the property tax, who should pay for those services?

 

[Ingomike]

You’d probably be shocked to learn how many people don’t have homeowners insurance at all. A tornado tore through my old neighborhood 15 or so years ago. It was pretty apparent which homes had no insurance because those lots were empty for a long time.

How did they buy without a mortgage but don’t have money for insurance? Wow!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How did they buy without a mortgage but don’t have money for insurance? Wow!

Most of them were elderly who I bet had paid off their homes and then let the insurance lapse.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Right now, there’s a modular home near me that caught on fire shortly after they set it. It was a decent looking home too. It’s been sitting there rotting to the ground ever since (at least 10 years ago). My guess is somehow they were able to buy it and then didn’t have insurance in effect when the fire hit.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What does appraised value have to do with any of this? If you mean assessed value, it is the measurement the legislature put in place to determine the portion of the cost of services to the property each must pay.

How do you suggest they determine how much each property owner pays? If we have the system should a owner with twenty acres, a 6000 sq ft house, quarter mile concrete driveway, and a 60‘ x 80’ barn pay the same as a owner with two acres, a 1500 sq ft house, a 100 foot gravel drive and a two car garage or should they pay based on what they own?


If you want to do away with the property tax, who should pay for those services?

How about a flat rate. Say, $100 per year per property (arbitrary amount for the sake of argument). The assessed value of the property shouldn't come into play whatsoever. A million dollar home on a half acre would pay the same as a $100K home on 5 acres.

 

[phylodog]

Most of them were elderly who I bet had paid off their homes and then let the insurance lapse.

Hard to afford property taxes and homeowner's insurance for many of the older folks in this country. One's a sure bet to be out on your ass, the other is a risk.

Eh, **** em, amiright? Somebody's gotta pay by God.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hard to afford property taxes and homeowner's insurance for many of the older folks in this country. One's a sure bet to be out on your ass, the other is a risk.

Eh, **** em, amiright? Somebody's gotta pay by God.

Mother nature might ignore you for many, many years but the government won’t. It will not go hungry.

 

[tim87tr]

We're at over 100 posts of people complaining.

Has anyone posted a viable alternative to property taxes?

Post #66 & #83. Best to find a way to minimize them. I don't see any relief from future increases. Once there's a tax, law, policy, mandate, etc., is there typically a reduction? Nope, but I like to complain as much as the next person

 

[smokingman]

Privatization of services and owning your property without threat of force to take it away related to property taxes, falls into an anarcho-capitalist model.

I disagree. I am not for anarcho-capitalism. I am for not having to lease my home from the state. In short I want to be able to own something for my labor. Under the current payment system that is impossible. You actually own nothing already. This from the perspective of a real-estate broker. You pay for the right(via cash or loans) to buy a lease from the state.

I do think services funded(most not all) by property taxes should be funded by society as a whole. I do not believe property taxes is how it should be done. Why not base that system on sales tax? Those that consume more resources of the society would pay more, those who work to own something could actually own it.