While I do think there should be some relief for some people as far as property taxes are concerned… living in a town or city gives a person access to many local government subsided services. Firefighters, and ambulances are some simple ones that everyone uses. Roads as well. And the cost of that does increase over time. Basing a person’s contributions to paying for that based on the value of thier property is just easier for local governments, and more stable. But it doesn’t really corelate with the use of those services. Nor with income or ability to pay.
Life necessities really shouldn’t be taxed at most levels. Food, shelter, water, heat, medical care. Most already aren’t. But housing still is. Investment properties should be taxed of course, but an average primary residence really shouldn’t be.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.
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
Interesting use of quotes. I wonder how it was “paid for”
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.
If you want to get reductive, you never truly own it even if you live in a society where there is no tax.
The rule of law that allows the concept of private ownership to be upheld in society runs on tax dollars. If you take away all of the tax dollars, the mechanisms that define and enforce the rule of law go with it.
In a completely tax free society someone can just kick in your door of your house and shoot you, and now they own your house. Who will stop the thief/murderer? There’s no police, no courts, no judges, no jails. If instead of an individual its a foreign nation, there’s no military to defend your nation’s borders. All of that comes from tax dollars. So even then you never really own your own house because someone can take it (and your life) away from you.
there have been entire civilizations that didn’t rely on taxes and cops, and they managed just fine. this is a Western/colonial mindset.
Any “civilization” without some form of taxation is either primitive hunter gatherers, or a despotism where the chief already owns everything and everyone.
Feel free to name one for discussion.
Yeah, that guy could sell his house for 5 times what he built it for
And then where is going to afford to buy another house to live in?
Maybe he should stop eating avocado toast
5? I bought my house a decade ago and it has almost doubled. If he built his house for less than his current property taxes, he would easily get 10x if not higher.
the sign says that property tax each year is a third of his original house cost. Assume he lives in a place with insane 15% property tax:
x*0.15*3=1
x=3*6
x=18His house is worth 18x or more what he paid to build it.
I see both arguments for this as valid. I get that you wanna stay and live your entire life in the place you owned forever. The reality is taxes are needed and will increase forever, which are important to keeping your state functioning (as long as the people in charge are doing a good job and actually using the funds wisely). I wonder what state they are from because I know property tax can be wildly different depending upon that. I’m sure they don’t want to, but there are like 6 states that currently offer no property tax to seniors over 65 and 10 that offer exemptions based on income and age. At the same time it is good to see them complain because maybe they can try to sway the state to also offer the no property tax benefit to seniors as well. Still if he is hurting that much, then it’s probably easier to sell the place and move to another place that will allow him to be better off with less worrying. It’s a valid option even if he doesn’t agree with 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.
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.
Yeah, that makes much more sense. I absolutely agree, sadly most places draw the line on ever allowing that to happen. Although I do remember reading that some states have minimum wage tied to it which was pretty shocking, despite making perfect sense.
For many states property taxes are the majority of funding for public schools. If that’s the case for the pictured person, the sign could also read:
“I got my public education for free from age 5-18 funded from others paying property taxes including learning how to read and write to make this sign you’re reading. Now that I’ve received that free public education and benefited from it, I’m not interested in paying for any kids to be educated using my dollars. F you, I got mine.”
We could also just pay for education differently.
I love the “but it pays for schools” argument, like how about we drop 3 less bombs per year and just pay for all the schools out of the existing tax pool like it should be.
Until we do, we can’t stop the current funding source. Feel free to present your argument on your proposed alternate method.
Have the rich actually pay taxes. Use that.
If you’re actually serious, you have to do better than that for an answer. How are you going to tax them? What are you going to tax them on? Who is considered rich?
It’s as fine tuned a proposal as, “tax property”.
“Tax property” has finely enumerated rules completely spelled out in the letter of the law in hundreds of different variations across many states and cities. You can certainly disagree with it, but its a fully formed and executed system that is funding many schools today.
What you’ve got so far in this discussion is “stop what is currently in place and make someone else pay somehow”. Thats not even fully formed thought much less an argument that can be defended. Your first statement, and now this follow up tell me you’re really interested (capable?) of proposing a better alternative.
I’m not going to “finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations” for you.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I’m not serious is not serious.
property tax is more equitable than sales tax because it is based on wealth instead of consumption.
It’s based on wealth that matters for rich people. For the average person it’s extremely regressive. We’re telling people that they must sell and move if they aren’t rich enough. There are better ways to tax people and assets in the 21st century.
Using property tax to fund education simply leaves poor areas poor and uneducated.
Now if they restructured it so the property tax went to the state level and was distributed to those schools that needed it most, not those schools that were in proximity of the land, I’d be for it.
It’s this way by design
that is true.
And progressive tax rates collected at the state level distributed based on student density and district need are better than both options.
Yes and. How most of the US funds their school system is super fucked up. Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers. This translates to much more equal levels of education, regardless of how wealthy a given neighborhood may be. I was shocked to find out that schools are paid for by catchment area taxes in must of the states - it makes the history of redlining so obvious when the is literally a “wing side of the tracks”.
Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province
Property tax is the mechanism through which the taxes are gathered, but funding is through the province. This is very different than how allocation happens in most states, where schools are directly funded by their catchment area.
Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers.
So the source is the provincial government, but in that system where is the province deriving the revenue to pay for schools? What is being taxed by the province to bring in the money it uses to fund schools?
Property taxes is the answer
Counterpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism from the original progressive
Marx was not a fan.
America is such a shitshow.
I was wondering if the US is property taxes were like 33%/year but it said original value, so I’m guessing it was dirt cheap then
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
I get what you’re saying.
But the last half of that last sentence reads “poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor”.it’s too bad you can’t see what I said, because that’s not it. sometimes people do stuff that on the surface might sound one way, how are we to know what the man did with the next part of his life.
But let’s consider he built his own house. And owned it by 25.
I’m of the age that I know a lot of people my parents age faced with situations similar to what is being presented in the picture.
I’ve also been homeless with my family and lived a pretty typical native American not living on a rez life. i know what being poor is. i know what it’s like for old people who are poor
Interesting. In Texas once you hit 65 they freeze your property taxes and no longer increase it. My parents are only paying $1,800/year on a $250K house. Meanwhile I’m paying $14,000/yr on a $500K house.
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.
My state doesn’t have any income tax. So it’s offset with higher property taxes. Other states have lowe me property taxes but have an income tax.
Low income taxes. And our sales tax is typically lower than European VAT when the comparison is valid. But those generally go to the feds and the state, that do not fund municipal services, so municipalities have to collect the remainder they need through property taxes, typically on real estate and cars. And none of them fund healthcare, so we have to pay a company premiums for that. Basically the same for higher education. When you look at our total financial burden to receive the kind of services that are funded by taxes in other developed countries, we can be deceptively expensive, especially if you start thinking about the comparative quality of those services. But our income and capital gains tax rates are low, especially if you are very rich! I made myself sad
Americans actually pay a higher effective tax rate than in civilized countries, while receiving fewer services in return.
Only the very weathy have a lower effective rate because they use discretionary spending to purchase lax tax laws.
America is a shit hole country in deep deep denial.
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.
Sounds like it’s working as intended to target snow birds or landlords owning multiple properties
Yes it does help limiting some snow birds. There is a whole methodology with snow birds. Unrelated to property tax and and home ownership. To establish state residency you need to physically live 6 months and a day in a state to be considered a “resident” there. Many try to get around it. But states go as far as checking where your cell phone is along with credit card purchases to catch people lying about where they were.
Is this guy paid by some rich guys wanting to abolish property taxes?
Surely this man would be in favor of a greater and graduated state income tax then, right?
…right?
Here the increases are capped at 3% per year if you live in the house. I lived in a shitty house we bought for 35k in the 1990s crash, and property taxes when we sold it in the breakup 20 years later were still under 1k a year, though insurance was crazy high. With husband we had to buy a much more expensive house, there are no shitty ones for sale anymore, all are snatched by corps to flip and rent. So now it’s high but in 20 years maybe it will seem low again. Especially if the market crashes and it’s re-assessed more reasonably.
It’s just inflation, I do think someone owning a home costs the city in roads, trash, transit, other services, Is not crazy to tax on property ownership.
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.
I think most places have a senior freeze, so once you qualify it doesn’t go up anymore.
My city has a senior discount on property taxes, where seniors that have a net worth and income both below certain numbers pay reduced or as low as 0% of their regularly assessed property tax. I’m not sure how they verify net worth, but it seems like a good system to me as long as they have figured out a way to do that efficiently and effectively
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.
Yeah, if you are comparing the house you bought in 1980 for 10k dollars and say you pay 5k in tax every three years, using 2025 dollars then that is totally useless as a statement.
Do the American thing and chuck it in the harbor until the taxes stop
If tea is to tea party, are you suggesting that we throw a house party?
If you learn skills such as how to fix shit yourself, owning a house is very obtainable.
The average household income where I live is ~$80k. Excluding the top 5%, it drops to ~$50k. That’s (on average) two full-time workers per household, each making ~$12/hour. Their annual (pre-tax) income would be about $480 per week, or ~$2080 per month each. After taxes, that would be closer to $1450. So likely around $3000 for the household’s monthly budget.
The cheapest homes near me start at $300k. A 30 year mortgage with a 6.5% interest rate and 10% down payment would be almost $2100 per month. That’s assuming they’re able to save the 10% in the first place, and get approved for the loan. It also leaves them with only ~$900 for the entire monthly budget. That’s food, utilities, car payment(s), insurance, childcare, etc…
Why doesn’t he homestead his home. I know Texas you can and it reduces your taxes. Used to be almost 0 but think that part changed.
Probably harder to build than just fixing an existing house, but do you…
If his math is right, and assuming that his property tax is about 1-2% of his home’s value per year, then the value of his home has increased about 15-30x the original value.
Its hard to be sympathetic.
It’s difficult to be sympathetic because you are viewing the property as an asset financially. And not as a place to live, he likely does not give a shit that it’s appreciated in value because he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of selling and he plans to live there till he dies and that’s how housing should be viewed
Thank you. Not everything in life is an asset to be leveraged to prop up your own position above those around you.
This psychotic way of thinking has led us to this sorry state. And I don’t just mean the USA.
I agree with your sentement but sometimes places become gentrified and the original inhabitants can no longer afford to live there.
I’m not saying that it’s good or the way things should be but it is a reality.
