Face it: Property taxes are forcing Illinoisans out of their homes

Nobody 'can't afford property' in the rich western world. It's a personal choice to stay poor.

 

No first world nation allows people to die in the streets.

Are you suggesting America should show "leadership" on that?

 

I see a few sentences in this that I might agree with.

I don't see the federal government's collection of property tax to be a "synergy".

Gas tax is regressive, but my city and others provide a pretty darn good public transportation system.

The Dems tried to move TARP toward low income voters by proposing to forgive some payroll tax, but the GOP was set on giving the money to the wealthy where they thought it would "trickle down" to those who needed help as they were losing their homes, and what not. I suspect you will have a tough time with your suggestion on this.

Shifting more tax load to property tax doesn't help those who own their homes or rent their living space. It's more regressive than income tax. You would have to create some system where one's primary residence is an exception. And, that STILL doesn't help renters. Telling those with low income that they have the wonderful choice of going away peacefully, leaving their jobs, relatives, friends and support systems is somewhat different than the choices we give those with wealth.

Those who claim "wealth distribution" aren't going to be even slightly satisfied with your description of collecting more from the wealthy and "spreading it" around the not wealthy.

 

People who 'die on the streets' in the rich west have done so by choice. It takes a lot to achieve that kind of poverty in a country like America. Are you suggesting that we should violate their choice?

 

?? So, what massive increase can renters cash in on? And, when we raise property taxes we absolutely do require people to sell their homes and leave.

In Seattle, homelessness is probably our largest single problem - a problem we're spending large amounts of money toward trying to reduce it.

Jacking property taxes is exactly the opposite direction, as it WILL leave more people unable to stay in housing.

There is NO argument for suggesting that property taxes isn't highly regressive.

 

see you didn't read my entire posting, where I clearly cite an example and explain away why its not regressive and showed its a net gain for the low income folks... and simply telling me public transportation is a solution doesn't help half the country who doesn't have access to public transportation, or a good form of it for that matter... and like I said, its not wealth redistribution, since we don't distribute that wealth directly to the people, my method provides a way for the poor to keep more of their own money, so yes I shift the tax curve up, but I don't reward the poor by giving them that extra money collected, they don't get to spend other peoples money in my method...

I dunno every time you say something, I've already explained away what you're arguing... like I said, I guess I don't expect anyone to ever read my long message and understand how it all works together... almost nobody ever reads it, they skim through and miss a lot of the details, you know like how you keep citing things I already explained...

 

False.

Period.

The costs of health care, disabilities, business choices that fail, lack of adequate education, etc., etc. all leave significant numbers of people on the edge. Before Obamacare, the leading cause of bankruptcy was health care. And, the need for health care is not a "personal choice".

 

Again, without Obamacare (which you want killed) bankruptcy was most often the result of health.

So, that alone demonstrates how wrong you are.

The idea that there are people who CHOOSE to be destitute is just plain ignorance.

 

Well, I did read it and I absolutely disagree with your attempt to suggest that property tax isn't regressive.

Property tax IS regressive. In fact, it disproportionately impacts those with little income, such as retirees, the housebound, those with disabilities, etc., regardless of whether they own their own home or rent. "Spreading" money in those areas impacted most heavily is NOT a solution. You can't identify "areas" like that so well as to offset the impact. And, you can't assume that the residents of those "areas" could take advantage of what you are offering. Their tax goes up. End of story.

I don't know what to say about those places that have no public transportation. Maybe they shouldn't tax gas. Maybe they should add the costs of a car into their definition of poverty. Maybe they should get with the times!

I've never talked to anyone who cares about wealth distribution who also differentiated on the basis of how it was distributed. I don't believe you have something here that would be accepted by those who claim "wealth redistribution".


Raising property tax drives low income people out of where they live.

We know that, because we study that problem here in Seattle. Salt Lake City studies it, too. We're both switching our efforts on homelessness to direct support for getting people into housing (rather than the more indirect approaches of job training, or whatever). The reason is that there are a lot of these people who HAVE jobs (or could have jobs if they had a place to clean up and cook their own food). Both cities think we can make progress by getting qualified people into rental units where they can pay their own way with their small incomes and any support they get.

If rent goes up, they will be back on the street.

If property tax goes up, their rent will go up.

End of story.

 

Young people think they will live forever and many will foolishly say they want to die before growing old.

 

In fact, Trump does have to pay property taxes. Democrats write the tax exemptions as much as Republicans and this would be ended by any of the flat tax proposals.

What you are saying is that mega billionaire Warren Buffet the money manipulator who owns very little real estate should pay 0.000001% taxes, while an elderly widow might have to pay 80% of her social security check for her property taxes you want to use to take her house and give it to the government.

Residential property taxes - whether directly or thru rent - are the most regression and oppressive of all, by which the poorer a person is the higher percentage of their income they pay in taxes. Farmers and ranchers of course are put out on the street as well.

 

You say that in jest, but that is precisely the nature of the socialists. They will kill the old to make room for the young. They're already doing it socialist countries. Older people don't get surgeries like hip replacement, etc. because they've already served their usefulness to society and are now a burden.

 

Again...I adamantly disagree...it is unconscionable that we have tax laws which have the potential to force people from their homes...when for decades the homeowner paid off their mortgage, maintained their property, maybe looked forward to living on that property until they die...while in parallel homes that cost $25K are now taxed at $1 million or more forcing the average person to sell and move.

And what does this present you; it forces out middle and lower class people in favor of those who can afford to buy $1+ million homes and pay $12K-$15K per year in property taxes! It places a tax burden on business all of which is passed on to the consumer. It forces bedroom communities which increases the demand for more roads, increases the cost of police and maintenance, creates horrific commuter traffic, and adds to the pollution issue.

 

Government is all of those things you delineate and all of them are created and/or maintained by taxpayer funding.

Don't you think something is wrong when perhaps 2/3rds of the American public cannot afford to fund the governments which they are demanding?

Nothing will ever be cut from the budgets because too many Americans are now dependent on the government teat. Worse yet, Obama's 10 year budget forecast shows the cost of government escalating every year. If government is not affordable today, if government is a huge burden on society today...how will things be in 5-10-20 years?

 

I think you mis-read my post...try again...

 

It's ridiculous to compare a car to a home?

People live in homes, retire in their homes, die in their homes!

Your preference seems to be increased property taxes can just force them from their homes and no big deal? That every person who is forced from their homes has the wherewithal to buy another property, to relocate, to start over?

You seem to ignore there are options like Prop 13 in CA which work just fine...

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't have any compassion, or empathy for others, then you should not be in these discussions about FORCING people from their homes...

 

I think you are asking whether I am in favor of all the expenditures of our government.

Obviously, the answer to that is no, and I've pointed that out.

Also, our taxation methods have been moved hugely toward the middle class through constant "trickle down" demands of Republican congressmen. In Reagan's day, I would be paying WAY more in tax. And, that would not even affect my lifestyle. Instead, we lean on the masses used by corporations to make giant profits.


Yes, we definitely need to look at the longer term projections. To meet that challenge, we're going to need to be economically competitive. Today, our approach to that is AWAY from manufacturing TOWARD service and high tech, information, innovation. Manufacturing is becoming automated and other nations have caught up, so our competitive advantage in manufacturing is decreasing, meaning less job growth. Plus, we've taken a hard line approach on busting unions, and have left wage earners behind - no dependability in retirement, no way of wage bargaining, no influence in benefits, no continuing job security, no training programs to keep workers having competitive resumes, etc.

Our approach has to include making sure that every citizen is educated through college if they have the will and the ability. Instead, we are making it MUCH harder. That is a very serious problem for America's future, because other nations are choosing to be competitive and are NOT making this mistake.

 

using words like FORCE is absurd here. the example home owner has a property which increased in value from $25k to $1mil, so is in no position to complain. many people live in areas whose value skyrockets, and they are subsequently no longer able to afford. I had a dear friend move very recently for just that reason. she bought her place for $220k, and over about 15 years it went up to $1m. it's a large house with a pool and lots of infrastructure - she simply could no longer afford to have all her money tied up in a high maintenance property. She sold it, bought a smaller place in a significantly cheaper neighbouring area, and has so much cash left over that she doesn't really need to work. AND she likes the house better. It has many of the features she wanted in the original house, but couldn't afford to effect.

Your current ownership of a home does not automatically entitle you to some sort of magical exemption from inflation etc. I have no idea why you think it does.

Meantime, I don't have 'compassion' for people complaining about property taxes on their $1mil properties, no. Sorry. They can do what any sensible person does, and downsize. Or not. It's all a choice.

 

Seattle is one of the whitest and most bigoted cities in the USA. Their government continues to pass measures to try to drive off minorities and poor people by constantlly escalating the cost of living. Seattle is CREATING the homeless in their goal of driving way poor and minority people. Of course, it also is a Democrat run city.

 

Property taxes are the most regressive and oppressive taxes at all maximizing taxing people the lower their income and minimizing it for people of high income. This is not just about people who owns homes - but everyone because property taxes are also paid by renters via higher rent.

 

Seattle has continued to attract highly paid technical workers in software, medical research, and other areas.

One result is that cost of living goes up.

 

They never enter that into the equation. Their answer would be price regulation to prevent it, lol!
That's worked really well, hasn't it? (cough, cough) Venezuela.

 

And forced by the local Democrats by raising minimum wages. Very calculated to drive off the poor, particularly minorities, while lying and claiming it is a liberal agenda for working people. It is to drive off the poor by making it so they can't live there, even as street people. This is not a rare tactic. Make food too expense for the truly poor and the either leave or starve to death - their choice.

 

Actually it is moving people off the dole.

Having wages too low to pay for necessities is not doing anyone any good. It just means we tax in order to support them.

Also, having more people able to spend money is a good thing for the economy in general. People spending their money is even what Bush suggested (although he did nothing to make it possible and ended up discouraging private savings (if anyone actually did what he said, which I doubt). And, those on minimum wage spend ALL their money - very much unlike those who have high incomes.

Wages aren't changing grocery prices. And, those who are working minimum wage jobs can't afford to be eating in restaurants as more than occasional entertainment - like I do.

 

If you place any credibility into bell curve theory, you will realize that no matter how much you pay people, there will forever and always be people who function in the lower quadrant of the bell curve...this applies to any topic. Therefore, whatever problems you perceive today to be caused by low wages, even if you increase all wages by 500%, the identical problems will still exist once the dust settles...