I just luv gubmint

[Ingomike]

Taxes are indeed payed by the landlord, and the landlord does try to pass that on, but as we discovered when reviewing economics 101, there are more factors that go into pricing than just expenses. Supply/demand, location, market conditions, etcetera.


This sounds too much like one might sound when bent over, and OHHH! May I have another?

BTW, expressing that there are other ways local communities could raise funds other than levying taxes on one's property, is not for the purposes of complaining, but to put ideas out there that people should demand better. Expressing that property taxes should not be based on market value is not complaining, but rather pointing out the problems with that system.

So offer real viable solutions rather than babble…

 

[Ingomike]

It's silly to argue on INGO and then blame INGO for having members who disagree with you. Don't blame it on INGO. It's a representation of opinions on many different topics from gun owners.

BTW, if you saw me in line paying my property tax, you wouldn't hear me complaining. I just wait in line if there is one, when I'm up, do my business, and then leave. I'm polite and cordial to the clerks. They're just doing their jobs. Even the county clerk and treasurer are doing their jobs. But, I'm sure they might raise an eyebrow if they notice the middle finger drawn on the check.

There have been NO solutions offered in this thread, just b******g, and that is further indicated by this post…

 

[Ingomike]

I aced my econ classes BTW.

Sounds like your only experience was in a class…

 

[KLB]

We have seen in this very thread that folks have no idea what property taxes pay for. That when asked they have nothing but vague responses to the questions of who and how those things should be paid for. I have said multiple times that some things should not be part of property taxes, and even offered reasoning as to why our predecessors chose the property tax for them but there has been no discussion as to those issues.

I have little option but to believe that folks are just b******g and not really in search of solutions to what they are so aggrieved about.

If you want to know what they pay for, look at your County budget. They are not earmarked for specific items.

 

[Ziggidy]

Taxes are indeed payed by the landlord, and the landlord does try to pass that on,

"TRY" to pass that on?

You're pretty stuck on the idea that some renters are not paying their fair share of taxes and it's because landlords are kind enough to eat the taxes, kind enough that they don't make a profit.

Can you introduce me to that landlord?

 

[Ziggidy]

I aced my econ classes BTW.

Ok then, maybe we should close the thread now?

 

[KLB]

"TRY" to pass that on?

You're pretty stuck on the idea that some renters are not paying their fair share of taxes and it's because landlords are kind enough to eat the taxes, kind enough that they don't make a profit.

Can you introduce me to that landlord?

Who said renters weren't paying their fair share?

I'm really not sure why you feel so defensive about this subject.

If no one is renting the property, who pays then? There is no doubt the market for housing in general sucks right now. That does not mean it is always like that, nor that it always was or will be.

 

[Ziggidy]

Who said renters weren't paying their fair share?

I'm really not sure why you feel so defensive about this subject.

If no one is renting the property, who pays then? There is no doubt the market for housing in general sucks right now. That does not mean it is always like that, nor that it always was or will be.

There has been a tone within the thread that renters do not pay fair share of property taxes. I was responding to a post where it was stated landlords "try" to pass on the taxes. I am just saying, in different words, landlords "are" passing the taxes along to renters and they do pay their fair share.

 

[jamil]

Ok then, maybe we should close the thread now?

Why? What you quoted has nothing to do with the thread. It was answering an unrelated claim.

 

[phylodog]

I suggested that if we are to keep property taxes based on value they should be based on the purchase price, period. Not what it might sell for, not what it could sell for, not increased every year to cover inflation or the fact that some major development is springing up close by and suddenly people living close by must **** an extra couple thousand dollars every year.

There has been no extensive listing of what property taxes pay for and such a discussion would be completely meaningless anyway as it would be a discussion on theory rather than practice. Politicians rob Peter to pay Paul every day from the township offices to the white house.

I received my notice of tax increase due to drainage management a few months ago, just before the farmer next door paid over $150,000 to have field tile put in to drain his field. He also paid $5000 for tile through my property to help drain his. I guess he should be sending gift cards to the county officials for ensuring his drainage taxes are being used to benefit his property. Pretty sure this land has been sitting here, pretty well untouched as far as drainage is concerned sucking up tax revenue since its inception, good to see those crucial taxes being spent to directly benefit the people paying them.

Plenty of methods of taxation out there which allow for actual ownership of property. They're taxing carbon for ****'s sake.

 

[jamil]

Who said renters weren't paying their fair share?

I'm really not sure why you feel so defensive about this subject.

If no one is renting the property, who pays then? There is no doubt the market for housing in general sucks right now. That does not mean it is always like that, nor that it always was or will be.

Exactly. In bad markets units sit empty. Those months the landlord is indeed eating the rent. In good markets landlords keep their units occupied and they can pass all their expenses onto their tenants. Right now, it's a landlord's market. Mortgage rates are high, inflation has taken it's toll.

Many people are priced out of the housing market and into the renters market. But that's not going to last forever. A good sign of that is the number of homes that sold over listing price. In 2022 almost 50% of homes sold over list. Last year that was down to 33%. This year it's looking to be more like mid 20's. The number of listing with a price drop went from ~10% to near 40%.

At some point we'll see mortgage rates drop. And home values drop, but we just got assessed so we're not likely to see the break in property taxes. As homes become more affordable again the number of renters will decline. It'll become harder to keep the units occupied.

 

[jamil]

I suggested that if we are to keep property taxes based on value they should be based on the purchase price, period. Not what it might sell for, not what it could sell for, not increased every year to cover inflation or the fact that some major development is springing up close by and suddenly people living close by must **** an extra couple thousand dollars every year.

There has been no extensive listing of what property taxes pay for and such a discussion would be completely meaningless anyway as it would be a discussion on theory rather than practice. Politicians rob Peter to pay Paul every day from the township offices to the white house.

I received my notice of tax increase due to drainage management a few months ago, just before the farmer next door paid over $150,000 to have field tile put in to drain his field. He also paid $5000 for tile through my property to help drain his. I guess he should be sending gift cards to the county officials for ensuring his drainage taxes are being used to benefit his property. Pretty sure this land has been sitting here, pretty well untouched as far as drainage is concerned sucking up tax revenue since its inception, good to see those crucial taxes being spent to directly benefit the people paying them.

Plenty of methods of taxation out there which allow for actual ownership of property. They're taxing carbon for ****'s sake.

Maybe we just need to flip the whole tax system and create a person tax. No income tax. No property tax. No usage taxes. No license fees. No excise tax. And for **** sake, no carbon tax. No more trying to control society through taxation.

Add up the cost of government; federal, state, and local governments, and divide that by how many constituents there are. That's how much tax you pay. Want to lower your tax bill? Vote for candidates that want less government for you to pay for.

It wouldn't be based on your income or assets. It would be based on how much government costs. Or even better, base the tax on how much government you use. I suspect most people might want a bit less government then. Obviously that's not practical. But as a thought exercise it makes one think about the whole reason to tax people. I think the fairest tax system would be one that makes people pay for the government they consume.

 

[KLB]

Exactly. In bad markets units sit empty. Those months the landlord is indeed eating the rent. In good markets landlords keep their units occupied and they can pass all their expenses onto their tenants. Right now, it's a landlord's market. Mortgage rates are high, inflation has taken it's toll.

Many people are priced out of the housing market and into the renters market. But that's not going to last forever. A good sign of that is the number of homes that sold over listing price. In 2022 almost 50% of homes sold over list. Last year that was down to 33%. This year it's looking to be more like mid 20's. The number of listing with a price drop went from ~10% to near 40%.

At some point we'll see mortgage rates drop. And home values drop, but we just got assessed so we're not likely to see the break in property taxes. As homes become more affordable again the number of renters will decline. It'll become harder to keep the units occupied.

Plus, as I already stated up thread, when the tax bill goes up this year the rent most likely does not. Those pesky leases stop landlords from just raising the rent.

 

[phylodog]

Maybe we just need to flip the whole tax system and create a person tax. No income tax. No property tax. No usage taxes. No license fees. No excise tax. And for **** sake, no carbon tax. No more trying to control society through taxation.

Add up the cost of government; federal, state, and local governments, and divide that by how many constituents there are. That's how much tax you pay. Want to lower your tax bill? Vote for candidates that want less government for you to pay for.

It wouldn't be based on your income or assets. It would be based on how much government costs. Or even better, base the tax on how much government you use. I suspect most people might want a bit less government then. Obviously that's not practical. But as a thought exercise it makes one think about the whole reason to tax people. I think the fairest tax system would be one that makes people pay for the government they consume.

Oh you'll get some push back on that one. Anything which even does a distant fly by of common sense will be argued down immediately.

 

[jamil]

"TRY" to pass that on?

Yes "TRY". In a booming rental market that's not a problem. If a renter doesn't renew the lease there's plenty of people looking. But, in a bad market when your rental property has set empty for 3 months, you're not recouping all that. Rental markets have boom/bust cycles just like other sectors.

You're pretty stuck on the idea that some renters are not paying their fair share of taxes and it's because landlords are kind enough to eat the taxes, kind enough that they don't make a profit.

No. I'm not stuck on any idea other than what I've actually said. I have never claimed in this thread that renters don't pay their fair share of taxes. The idea of "fair share" is a retarded way to look at it anyway. Usually landlords are able to pass their expenses onto the tenants. Not always. Refer to the above as many times as needed to understand what I'm saying, and what I'm not saying.

Can you introduce me to that landlord?

Sure. My former landlord. He rented out a few homes as a side gig. We rented a home from him when we moved to Louisville. In those days housing market was doing really well. The rental market here not so much. He told me the house I rented from him was empty for a few months before I signed the lease.

He ended up reducing the price to get me to sign the lease. I was looking at another place that was $100 less, that was a bit bigger, and so I pushed back on the price because this was closer to work; we split the difference. So $50 less per month. He wasn't getting his costs back from the place sitting empty from me. But he was making income on the place again.

We stayed two years. The housing market had gone bust, and the rental market heated up months before we left. He took the news that we were leaving too well, lol. I think he was anticipating our lease ending because he could make more. Dude called a few days after I gave notice and was already asking how soon we could be out. Probably was getting a lot more than we were paying.

 

[jamil]

Oh you'll get some push back on that one. Anything which even does a distant fly by of common sense will be argued down immediately.

It's normalcy bias.

Whah? Uh. But we always pay property tax. The world would be different if we didn't pay it.

 

[jamil]

Plus, as I already stated up thread, when the tax bill goes up this year the rent most likely does not. Those pesky leases stop landlords from just raising the rent.

By the time some leases end, the market may be down enough for rentals that they can't raise the rent enough to recoup the extra cost of taxes. But, just because the market causes them to eat a little bit of cost, doesn't mean they're making a net loss. It just means they're not clearing as much month-to-month. And then when the bust cycle ends, they'll jack up the rent and be euphorically orgasmic again.

 

[Ingomike]

If no one is renting the property, who pays then?

If no one is renting the property it is not a rental property.

 

[Ingomike]

I received my notice of tax increase due to drainage management a few months ago, just before the farmer next door paid over $150,000 to have field tile put in to drain his field. He also paid $5000 for tile through my property to help drain his. I guess he should be sending gift cards to the county officials for ensuring his drainage taxes are being used to benefit his property. Pretty sure this land has been sitting here, pretty well untouched as far as drainage is concerned sucking up tax revenue since its inception, good to see those crucial taxes being spent to directly benefit the people paying them.

The farmer putting a drain tile in his field is similar to a the drain pipes in a house connected to a city sewer, the city sewer is not responsible for your personal pipes, that is what a private field tile is. The county is responsible for the system AFTER it leaves your property Or if their system crosses your property…

 

[Ingomike]

Maybe we just need to flip the whole tax system and create a person tax. No income tax. No property tax. No usage taxes. No license fees. No excise tax. And for **** sake, no carbon tax. No more trying to control society through taxation.

Add up the cost of government; federal, state, and local governments, and divide that by how many constituents there are. That's how much tax you pay. Want to lower your tax bill? Vote for candidates that want less government for you to pay for.

It wouldn't be based on your income or assets. It would be based on how much government costs. Or even better, base the tax on how much government you use. I suspect most people might want a bit less government then. Obviously that's not practical. But as a thought exercise it makes one think about the whole reason to tax people.

Interesting thought

I think the fairest tax system would be one that makes people pay for the government they consume.

It may be the fairest but collection and enforcement would be intrusive and expensive…