Property tax needs to be repealed / abolished NOW! (Morgan Co info here)

[jamil]

We've decided that property ownership equates to wealth with the current property tax framework and that is the primary problem. If a homeless, jobless person inherits 10 acres of property the government suddenly sees him as wealthy and drops a tax responsibility on him. Can't pay? Well darn, I guess we'll let one of the Sheriff's buddies buy it at the auction next year. Tough luck citizen, all this tax fairness caught up with ya.

People shouldn't be taxed by their affluence. Or their property's market value. I don't mind giving people at the top a bit more load to carry, and the people at the bottom a little less. But basing that on the property's market value is horse ****.

 

[jamil]

Once you stop producing for the state you no longer matter. The mere mention of being on a fixed income will get you belittled for not properly planning your finances.

If I ever retire (If I had my druthers I'd work until I die) I'm moving to a retirement friendly state, that doesn't tax the **** out of you.

 

[jamil]

I never said it did that I can recall, I have just explained that was the mechanism the people decided ago to apportion the costs.

The people didn't decide that. The governor and general assembly did. You also said it was to pay for the government services used or something to that effect, when assessments have zero to do with that.

That said, what method of apportionment should be used? Each owner pays equal tax? Then the guy with 1/4 acre 2 bedroom 1 bath pays the same as a guy with 100 acres 9 bedrooms and 11 baths?

What method of apportionment? Well, how about something that has a little less to do with how many bedrooms you have, and a lot more to do with how much government you consume. But if we based taxation on the actual cost of government, I suspect a lot of people would vote for people who advocate for a lot less government.

 

[jamil]

FIFY

Bull ****. Why is market value the right apportionment? You keep openly disagreeing with people who say it shouldn't be based on market value, which sounds a whole lot like advocacy, and then when challenged on it you retreat to, oh, I'm just saying how it is. You could make it read a lot less like advocacy if you didn't vehemently disagree when people say it ought not be based on market value.

 

[Ingomike]

Again you deflect. How does one with MORE property benefit MORE? You make snide comments about how it is communist to not pay more tax because you have more property and benefit more, but it is all air. Show your work.

Then you go on about owners and renters. What does that have to do with what I said? Just more hot air and deflecting. How does one with MORE property benefit MORE?

If you cannot understand more uses more in most cases I cannot help you. More property, (acres, sq feet, buildings), is more to defend from crime, protect from fire, provide drainage, and other services. Pretty simple really.

Now, stop deflecting and tell us, just who should pay for those services if not property owners?

 

[Ingomike]

We've decided that property ownership equates to wealth with the current property tax framework and that is the primary problem. If a homeless, jobless person inherits 10 acres of property the government suddenly sees him as wealthy and drops a tax responsibility on him. Can't pay? Well darn, I guess we'll let one of the Sheriff's buddies buy it at the auction next year. Tough luck citizen, all this tax fairness caught up with ya.

So the homeless-jobless person should pay a tax that covers the services for property owners when he buys his bottle?

 

[Ingomike]

If you base assessment on market value, it ***damn sure is taxing on unrealized gain. You're conflating the reasons for property taxes and the practice of it. If I add a fence or a pole barn to my property, that increases its market value. It doesn't increase the cost of government. If property tax is to pay for benefits my property receives (presumably government services) then me spending money making my home more valuable doesn't cost the government anything. But I'm taxed more because of it.

I see why you are not an accountant. Is not property ownership generally a sign of wealth? Our ancestors thought so and used it as a proxy for determining the basis for property taxes for centuries.

Value based taxes have little to do with services consumed. One could say that more valuable properties tend to use more government services, but that correlation is quite low.

Based on what?

Why do you think no one takes discussions seriously when they disagree with you? Maybe the people disagreeing with you are the serious ones. Maybe? Could it be?

If one cannot use the correct terms and concepts they probably do not have the knowledge to take this seriously. Many posts in this thread conflate federal issues to state and or local. The vast majority are just bi*****g.

How about this? Take the cost of government consumed on an individualized basis, including common costs, and spread it across all consumers of government. Doesn't even have to do anything with taxing property. Just send a tax bill. Say your local community is ~35,000. Your government spends around $60M per year in common stuff. School system. Local government employees. Police. Fire. Dog catcher. Etcetera. Your property has a total of 1000 ft total road frontage. Let's say the total cost of that for the year is $235. You had a small fire and the fire department had to put it out. Your house was broken into. Cops came out and filed a report. Let's say the total cost of all that was $650.

You get a bill for:

$60M / 35K = $1714.29
cost of property = $235
cost of individual gov services = $650
Total tax bill: $2599.29

But no. we can't do that because it's impractical. Many people could not afford the government they consume. So we kinda loosely tax by affluence. But, basing the tax assessment on the market value of the home has little to do with the cost of government. It's just government leaders trying to gouge as much as they possibly can so that they can spend more on building their legacy. Like the bike paths, that are really no more than statues to themselves. Look at me. I did that.

While I have no proof of this I suspect that because of the Indiana property tax structure individual property tax owners (those bi*****g here) probably are not paying their fair share. Many things in life seem to work that way, kinda like cat ladies paying for lifetime were actually subsidizing ESPN sports.

Why is it the homesteads only pay 1% of their assessed value? Ag land is 2%, rental homes and apartments 2%, commercial 3%, do those other property types use more services per assessed dollar or are they subsidizing the homesteads? There seems to be a lot of woe is me in this thread with little regard for the facts of how or why.

Logic seems thrown out here. We cannot even agree renters pay the property tax by paying their rent, so imagine the concept that every consumer of groceries, and other retailers are paying property tax will be lost here. Yep, go to the movies, eat out, play put-put, get a massage, you paid property tax, and those charges are 3%. The business pays the tax and ads it to the cost of business.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

We cannot even agree renters pay the property tax by paying their rent, so imagine the concept that every consumer of groceries, and other retailers are paying property tax will be lost here. Yep, go to the movies, eat out, play put-put, get a massage, you paid property tax, and those charges are 3%. The business pays the tax and ads it to the cost of business.

So all these things can be included when I'm asked how much I paid in property taxes on my 1040 every year? Cool! I see a much larger refund in my future.

 

[Ingomike]

So all these things can be included when I'm asked how much I paid in property taxes on my 1040 every year? Cool! I see a much larger refund in my future.

So because the feds don't let you write it off means it doesn’t exist?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So because the feds don't let you write it off means it doesn’t exist?

Only in a very abstract way.

 

[Ingomike]

Only in a very abstract way.

You really believe it is that abstract? That there is no physical concrete logical connection to the concept that the retailer spends money, including paying property tax, to offer goods or services and that payment for those goods and services is what pays for the costs of providing goods and services, including property tax?

Maybe retailers should stop paying property tax if they have no bearing on the ability to offer goods and services…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You really believe it is that abstract? That there is no physical concrete logical connection to the concept that the retailer spends money, including paying property tax, to offer goods or services and that payment for those goods and services is what pays for the costs of providing goods and services, including property tax?

Maybe retailers should stop paying property tax if they have no bearing on the ability to offer goods and services…

I'm saying this line of reasoning could be stretched out ad absurdum.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm saying this line of reasoning could be stretched out ad absurdum.

That is not abstract. And yes, I believe the cost of a widget includes fuel costs for shipping…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That is not abstract. And yes, I believe the cost of a widget includes fuel costs for shipping…

But fuel cost is legally recognized as a business expense for the makers and sellers of widgets. The property tax that the business pays on their facility is not recognized for the consumers of widgets. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Ingomike]

But fuel cost is legally recognized as a business expense for the makers and sellers of widgets. The property tax that the business pays on their facility is not recognized for the consumers of widgets. Why do you suppose that is?

Sorry, I don’t understand the question here?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Sorry, I don’t understand the question here?

Following your line of reasoning that renters pay property taxes via the rent charged by the landlords. Presumably it stands to reason that producers of widgets pass along the expense of their property taxes in the price of the widgets that widget consumers pay. Therefore, widget consumers pay property tax on widget producing facilities. Why is that not legally recognized?

 

[manifest destiny]

I'm pretty sure apartment complexes use more "government" than a homesteader. Some apt.s probably use A LOT more. Also, assessment is largely based on land and improvements to the land. Me, spending my money, improving my land costs the government nothing. Further, assessment don't account for the actual value a home might/might not have such as the materials, effeciencies, etc. Finally, while land may hold intrinsic value, unless the land is sold or borrowed against, the value is in the land, not the pocket of the land owners.

 

[firecadet613]

Logic seems thrown out here. We cannot even agree renters pay the property tax by paying their rent, so imagine the concept that every consumer of groceries, and other retailers are paying property tax will be lost here. Yep, go to the movies, eat out, play put-put, get a massage, you paid property tax, and those charges are 3%. The business pays the tax and ads it to the cost of business.

These same folks don't get that the gamblers are the ones who built Vegas...

 

[Ingomike]

Following your line of reasoning that renters pay property taxes via the rent charged by the landlords. Presumably it stands to reason that producers of widgets pass along the expense of their property taxes in the price of the widgets that widget consumers pay. Therefore, widget consumers pay property tax on widget producing facilities. Why is that not legally recognized?

The widget producers get that write off, just as they get the write off for any business expense including fuel costs of shipping. The consumer gets no write offs, they are, like the material costs, baked into the price.

 

[racegunz]

If (big if) they “assess” farm acreage like they do primary residences, at there market value then you will see change. No one cares if a retired person can’t stay in the house they paid off. When farmers can’t pay the same assessments as homeowners pay ?