Property tax needs to be repealed / abolished NOW!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

[Ingomike]

What? You don't want that?

I do support that if not abused for cronyism…

 

[jamil]

I read on INGO that you cannot pass the cost onto customers. Glad you can…

No you didn't. You read on INGO that expenses aren't the only factor in price. You concocted the rest because straw is easier to knock over than reality.

I get your point and all that is driving up prices, including property, those are the type of things I said were driving up values that cause the property taxes to rise sharply.

I'd like you to acknowledge that value is a poor basis for taxation. No. You don't need to explain how it is. We know that.

 

[jamil]

I do support that if not abused for cronyism…

lol. The system we have is abused by cronyism.

 

[KLB]

How does one with MORE property benefit MORE?

Did I miss a answer to this question? I am still waiting to be enlightened.

 

[KLB]

Really. Good to know. So if no one lives at a property it doesn’t need anything it just sits there pristine as you left it. Doesn't need any if the property services like drainage, fire protection if a cigarette gets tossed on it catches fire, no police for trespassers, no one to manage deeds, no roads to the property, the list goes on.

You and drainage. That's all you have, and it is a drop in the bucket.

Nobody calls the police for trespassers on unoccupied property. It would take a hell of a fire for the fire department to be called. The others are for PEOPLE. Property has no need of roads, deeds, or anything else. The people do.

As for the county budget, those before us set up the system, however if enough people want to eliminate or move things to other funding sources, it can be done…

I don't know why you trot this nonsense out every now and then.

 

[Ingomike]

You and drainage. That's all you have, and it is a drop in the bucket.

Nobody calls the police for trespassers on unoccupied property. It would take a hell of a fire for the fire department to be called. The others are for PEOPLE. Property has no need of roads, deeds, or anything else. The people do.

Property without services is worth far less than property with county deeds, roads, schools, and other typical county services. Do you dispute this?

I don't know why you trot this nonsense out every now and then.

Because we get just a bunch of complaints posts and few if any workable options. Do you think for a minute any of the options suggested in this thread would get the support of even the most conservative candidates or voters?

 

[KLB]

Property without services is worth far less than property with county deeds, roads, schools, and other typical county services. Do you dispute this?


Because we get just a bunch of complaints posts and few if any workable options. Do you think for a minute any of the options suggested in this thread would get the support of even the most conservative candidates or voters?

So you are just arguing to argue

 

[jamil]

I don't know why you trot this nonsense out every now and then.

It's the safe space. When challenged he can retreat to that and claim he's only explaining things.

 

[jamil]

Property without services is worth far less than property with county deeds, roads, schools, and other typical county services. Do you dispute this?

What? So you're saying that the government should be able to tax you more just because their services raise your property value? I think you're kinda going around in circles here.

Because we get just a bunch of complaints posts and few if any workable options. Do you think for a minute any of the options suggested in this thread would get the support of even the most conservative candidates or voters?

Not basing property tax on market value IS a workable option, but not likely to happen in Indiana because the cronies like it.

 

[phylodog]

So you are just arguing to argue

There it is.

 

[jamil]

So you are just arguing to argue

I think he thinks he knows how things ought to be, and that everyone who disagrees with him must do so because they just don't understand what's good for them, and he must explain it to them. Like: Cyclists' absolute, unalienable right to ride in the middle of the road. Bike paths. HOA's. Crooked NRA CEO's. Justifying bump stock ban. And now the latest, justifying basing property tax assessments on unrealized market value. Etcetera.

 

[bobzilla]

Like I said, if you were merely explaining the system as it is, it would sound a lot less like advocacy.


Property tax is theft. There are better solutions. Not utopian, but also everyone knows it won't happen, because the system is well liked by HOA advocates and chamber-o-commerce republicans. Now that property taxes are based on market value, ain't no self respecting CoC Hoosier assemblyman gonna vote for killing local government's cash cow.

He has stated many many many many times that A.) he does not believe we should have property tax and 2.) it's likely not to go away iii.) most people have no idea how it actually works and d.) while it sucks, we are one of the better options in the country at this time as far as cost, like it or not. Not one state in this country has zero property tax and those few that are cheaper are not exactly great places to live. He's not once advocated for property tax so please leave that attack and the insults at the door.

 

[jamil]

He has stated many many many many times that A.) he does not believe we should have property tax and 2.) it's likely not to go away iii.) most people have no idea how it actually works and d.) while it sucks, we are one of the better options in the country at this time as far as cost, like it or not. Not one state in this country has zero property tax and those few that are cheaper are not exactly great places to live. He's not once advocated for property tax so please leave that attack and the insults at the door.

He has posted in defense of property tax, and especially basing property tax on market value favorably, then retreats to "oh, I'm not defending it, I'm just explaining it," many many many many times.

 

[bobzilla]

He has posted in defense of property tax, and especially basing property tax on market value favorably, then retreats to "oh, I'm not defending it, I'm just explaining it," many many many many times.

That's your perception. Your perception because this is a topic that makes you angry (as it does most of us) and that is tainting your view here. Trust me, step back and breath. No one, and I mean literally ****ing NO ONE here wants or approves of property taxes. Sadly there is no escape and literally every state has it.

 

[Ingomike]

So you are just arguing to argue

So you cannot just answer a simple question but I am arguing.

 

[Ingomike]

What? So you're saying that the government should be able to tax you more just because their services raise your property value? I think you're kinda going around in circles here.

I think that without those government services the land you own would exist as you see it, it wouldn’t, you would live in a hovel in a dense city. You seem to have no foundational knowledge of land, values, and services needed to create value to people.

Not basing property tax on market value IS a workable option, but not likely to happen in Indiana because the cronies like it.

And since no one would ever do the pay as you use as you suggested what should the services properties receive be based on?

 

[Griz375]

I thought Governor Daniels fixed all that ?

An elected politician anywhere FIXING anything?

Links please!

 

[Ingomike]

That's your perception. Your perception because this is a topic that makes you angry (as it does most of us) and that is tainting your view here. Trust me, step back and breathe. No one, and I mean literally ****ing NO ONE here wants or approves of property taxes. Sadly there is no escape and literally every state has it.

I would love to see a truly viable alternative to the property tax as I despise that property owners can never truly own property free and clear as long as there is a property tax.

An interesting thing I learned in this, people really have no idea what their property tax pays for beyond broad concepts. There is no understanding for what was done historically to improve this land and many here seem to believe it just exists. There is no understanding of the thinking of those that set up the system and their reasoning. The height of that is the arrogance that county government does nothing of value for the land itself.

I believe we need to have a serious discussion on just what services and programs should be levied against property and the people. Many of the current services and programs were started when most of the country was involved in agriculture before the industrial revolution.

There have been a few logical suggestions and a couple of crazy ones. First let’s set how property tax is determined. The budget is passed, that budget is equally divided over the total assessed value of the jurisdiction subject to the circuit breakers in our constitution.

The most interesting one to me is the buy your property your tax is locked until you sell.

The pro of is this is the owners rate never changes. Cannot think of another pro but please share if you do.

Cons, this doesn’t change the budget, therefore very unequal treatment of the people that was the basis for ISC striking down the old system. Then it will shift a radical tax increase when property does sell putting much burden on those trying to buy a property while shielding the current owners from an increase.

This also will encourage people to hold property they no longer want, that others may have productive use for, because the property they really want will have a big tax increase. Do not see how this helps the overall community only a few that have the property they wish to own until they die.

Pay for what you use.

To use my personal favorite as the example, the county drainage system may not even touch your property in any way you understand but it is there benefiting most if not all property. The owner is not paying for specific drainage, that is the owners responsibility, but the system that moves that water once it leaves is maintained by the county. How does this get billed by what you use?

To say that police and fire should be per use ignores that they are on constant standby. How does that get billed? How about the county courts? How do they get billed? If it is per use the they might as well be privatized, but then the people wouldn’t elect them.

Let’s see if we can get some discussion here instead of whining…

 

[Cavman]

I think he thinks he knows how things ought to be, and that everyone who disagrees with him must do so because they just don't understand what's good for them, and he must explain it to them. Like: Cyclists' absolute, unalienable right to ride in the middle of the road. Bike paths. HOA's. Crooked NRA CEO's. Justifying bump stock ban. And now the latest, justifying basing property tax assessments on unrealized market value. Etcetera.

He talks like all the state reps.. that taxing the hell out of us is sooooo good for us we just don't understand

 

[Ingomike]

He talks like all the state reps.. that taxing the hell out of us is sooooo good for us we just don't understand

More whining without an discussion of the issue…