The Goat Pen

People over the age of 65, disabled, and/or low income are exempted in many states.

It's a rhetorical argument just because your idea of "outright" doesn't square with the actual bundle of rights and duties that exist when you buy property. Almost everybody that owns a home in this country willingly buys property that has certain property rights of "outright" ownership stripped from the property whether that be mineral rights separated, deed restrictions, zoning, HOA restrictions, utility right of way, municipality code enforcements, and on and on and on. Maybe in the backwoods hills of Kentucky somewhere there still exists some semblance of outright ownership (highly desirable and expensive land, I'm sure), but in Ohio suburbs that certainly doesn't exist, and it not because of property taxes.

In Texas they can't take your home at all I don't think.

In Alabama, you stopped paying when you hit 65. I believe they recently changed that to it stopping at 65 as long as your income was below $12,000 a year.

aTm wrote:In Texas they can't take your home at all I don't think.

not true. They can't if you file bankruptcy. The city of Houston just took an blighted house 2 houses down from my parents.

There is a reason one gets a Deed (granted from the sovereign- that sovereign being the state or the feds) This has been the case since before the Constitution was written. One student just followed a piece of land back to the grant from Spain.

you can't buy a gun in Colorado but you can do this

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/05/still ... rip-clubs/

I've always felt that property valuations should be based on the value at time of title transfer and not increased until when it transfers again. This would let older folks be able to afford to stay in their homes without their property taxes going through the roof because all of a sudden their neighborhood is in demand. I know of folks in Charlotte purchased their home in 1970's for around $85K and now have their homes worth $800K+. That's about $13K a year in property taxes.

That's how it works in California. In practice that's generally how it works for residential, but it's ridiculous for commercial property. basically commercial real estate never technically is sold in California, but the partnership or company that owns the property is sold instead.

Ohio has consistently valued all my properties thousands below their real value. Still. Property taxes are a joke but I understand. So do my tenants who pay them.

one lawmaker said people who live in poor areas and don’t have cars might not have a choice but to use a strip club ATM.

That can't be the reason it failed. Considering the news source, it may be little deeper than that, per chance.

Also, I thought both Texas & Florida were Homestead States, where civil action nor bankruptcy could cause you to lose your home. It's why athletes always buy in Florida & why OJ relocated there. I don't know about the repercussions of tax absconds (if that is the word).

No state income tax is why they moved there.

Louisiana is a Homestead state as well. Bankruptcy and forego the lost of your home. However, your home can be foreclosed on. The bankruptcy laws were significantly tightened for the layman in 2005 or so.

Even as a homestead state, don't pay your property taxes and you can lose your home. That is not a homestead or foreclosure, it's essentially a forfeiture. States give you a certain time to pay it back (with penalty). Georgia one year, Louisiana 3 years.

considering that most people pay up to 300% of their original mortgate loan, I agree with eCat. you never really own shit.

AlabamAlum wrote:Saint railing against taxes and BAMAFEVER supporting them.

I don't know what kinda bizzaro world this is.

I want lower taxes but certainly understand why we have them. I have much less problem paying property taxes for necessities versus income and other redistributive taxes. Is there a problem with that?

if it were up to me, I'd probably compromise on a lean but no forfeit rule.

I have no problem with someone losing a house because they didn't pay a mortgage, but I have a serious problem with someone losing their home because they couldn't pay taxes that were either assessed or voted on and applied to them.

I would just require that a home/land cannot be sold (but it can be inherited) until all leans are addressed but as long as it is your primary residence or farm, you cannot lose it to taxes.

Interesting, although I would think there would still need to be a differentiation between refusing to pay and unable to pay. I guess the lien would take care of that. If state or federal tax returns could be reduced for the amount...or maybe garnishment of wages, then a municipality may be able to survive with that policy.

its like Sardis said, we have people who live on fixed incomes here that have seen their property taxes go up $1400 a year since 1993. Some were also mandated to convert from septic systems to the city system at a cost of $22K per house which was added on as a low interest payment to their property taxes AND their water bill. Now throw in that their property has gone up probably 50% in value since its purchase in the late 70's or early 80's and its possible that their post mortgage tax burden is just as high as their original mortgage was.

no one is saying that you don't need police, firemen, - all that but its bullshit that you can pay off your house by the time you are 40 and 20 years after that you're paying as much in taxes, etc tied to your property as your mortgage was - at a time in your life when you can least afford it as you should be dumping money into retirement. That's an extreme example but I"m sure its not far off for some folks , especially in rural areas that have exploded in growth while state funding has dried up...and its tied to your property for no other reason than they know you'd pass up everything else including a few meals before you gave up your residence - something that you worked a good % of your life to own.

makes me angry just typing it

I'd also consider everyone past whatever the retirement age is having zero tax burden other than sales tax.

the problem is that local gov'ts have to use property taxes to pay for shit that is far more vital to the average American. if the state and the feds shared their loot, the locals wouldn't have to hit you for something you already own.

while there are those who may disagree, my experience is that local gov't is far more likely to steal your wife and run your life and waste your money.

eCat wrote:if it were up to me, I'd probably compromise on a lean but no forfeit rule.

I have no problem with someone losing a house because they didn't pay a mortgage, but I have a serious problem with someone losing their home because they couldn't pay taxes that were either assessed or voted on and applied to them.

I would just require that a home/land cannot be sold (but it can be inherited) until all leans are addressed but as long as it is your primary residence or farm, you cannot lose it to taxes.

My FIL (age 83) family home still has his father's name on the deed. His father died in 1934. Your presumption is that homes go up for sale. For many homes, there aren't sales. How long you going to keep a lean? Don't pay your property taxes, that's some kids school supplies. That's the potholes in the street. That the man who is picking up your trash. Hell, why pay the taxes, if it's going to be a meaningless lien. Just keep it until I decide to sale the sucker, if I ever do, then just pay it from the sale (some 30 years later). Now multiply that by everybody in the city.

The number one reason people don't pay their property taxes is their children don't pay them when the parents die.