Property taxes

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).

I have no idea if this is going to go anywhere, but I found it interesting:

 
How are they going to make the argument that this is a FEDERAL issue?

No matter your stance on taxes, it's states and counties that levy and collect real-estate taxes.
 
Casey Jones said:
How are they going to make the argument that this is a FEDERAL issue?

No matter your stance on taxes, it's states and counties that levy and collect real-estate taxes.
Click to expand...
The States and Counties still can't violate your Rights.
 
Joe King said:
The States and Counties still can't violate your Rights.
Click to expand...
So, from the time of definition of Natural Rights of Man, through to to 250 years of this nation...untaxed real-estate was NOT a right, but alluva-sudden it IS.

The only logic to that, would be to recast the definition of "rights" to whatever the Kourts order that they are, when they order it.

Basically, making the Kourts into Divinities.

And/or making "rights" subservient to politics - pull, pressure, the holding of office.
 
Seeing that they took the case, we will find out.

They could go either way on it, but once they do the matter will be settled.


They can only hear cases that someone chose to spend the time and resources on to get it that far through the legal process.

There are lots of legal questions that have never made it that far.
 
Casey - the case is not about whether or not "untaxed real-estate is a right". It's arguing a very specific issue with respect to how real estate taxes are assessed. If the method is eventually found to be invalid, that doesn't necessarily mean that government(s) can't develop a new structure that is valid.
 
Joe King said:
They could go either way on it, but once they do the matter will be settled.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the Imperial Kourt model. A relative of the Divine Right of Kings, and Papal Infallibility.

I dislike the model - AS the model, as I tried to show. I don't accept something as a "right" just because someone wearing a ritual robe says it is. The Reniasaince philosophers, articulating Natural Law, were far more persuasive.

As to it being settled...how'd Roe-Vee-Wade work out in terms of being settled forever? For that matter, Dred Scott. And Jim Crow...Separate-Butt-Equal.

Laws, edicts, orders, that move out of the legislative and into Imperial Edict, likewise move resistance from campaign attacks to bombings, gunfire, riots, and @$$@$$ination.

However it goes, it's not a win. It's not a win because the Kourt has no business arguing it.
 
Probably in other states too.

Minnesota Constitution Art. I, § 15. Lands allodial; void agricultural leases​


Sec. 15. All lands within the state are allodial and feudal tenures of every description with all their incidents are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural lands for a longer period than 21 years reserving rent or service of any kind shall be void.
 
Well...that's state-constitution guarantees. Which are not the same as "rights."

This bears consideration. A government charter (Federal and states' constitutions) does not give us rights. Nature and Nature's God, bestow Natural Rights of Man.

The Constitution, and state charters, gain legitimacy by RECOGNIZING those rights, and articulating when specific behaviors and properties are essential to protecting those rights (Keep and Bear Arms) but they are not rights because another man said they are and wrote it down.

Now, if the Right to Life were denied by government for 250 years, and then suddenly by court rulings, recognized as a right...you couldn't say that your right to life now existed. It either was there or not; and in any event, a government refused to recognize it. As most Feudal and tyrannical governments in history have not.

But saying it's now a right because a court said it's a right, shows it is NOT a right recognized by this society and government; only that it's politically expedient to suddenly elevate the importance of life.

See the difference?
 
It's only a thing now because the taxes are insanely high now. In a relatively low tax state my property taxes are up over 60% in 10 years most of it coming after the latest assessment.
 
Casey Jones said:
I dislike the model - AS the model, as I tried to show. I don't accept something as a "right" just because someone wearing a ritual robe says it is. The Reniasaince philosophers, articulating Natural Law, were far more persuasive.
Click to expand...
There still has to be a way for legal disputes to be settled and for laws to be tested.

For better or worse, that's what the courts are for.
 
Joe King said:
There still has to be a way for legal disputes to be settled and for laws to be tested.

For better or worse, that's what the courts are for.
Click to expand...
What do rational people do, when kourts ignore obvious evidence, logic, common sense, and plainly-written explanations BY the authors of the charter document?

That is, when the Kourt is itself rogue?...do we all fall in lockstep behind the revolutionaries in black robes?
 
Lancers32 said:
It's only a thing now because the taxes are insanely high now. In a relatively low tax state my property taxes are up over 60% in 10 years most of it coming after the latest assessment.
Click to expand...
That's what legislative redress is for. California's Prop. 13 did exactly that; and it's one of the few things the Gollum State got right.

It's NOT a matter involving Constitutional Law or fundamental rights.
 
pmbug said:
I have no idea if this is going to go anywhere, but I found it interesting:


Click to expand...

I think ANYONE who goes to protest your taxes has an easy win (if they don't just railroad you). ALL of these assessors use proprietary software that does all "the math". The dummy assessors, who are licensed I think in all states, but if they are licensed they are technically doing the appraisals. If they don't know how the software calculates the values then you win. Or, as in another video but RealEstateMindset, the idiot for the County admitted that they don't allow any "As-Is" sales into the data. Well that's also BS and biases every valuation up. As-is typically just means its in below average condition.
 
That's why the appraisal needs to be legally considered an offer to buy.

That'd fix over valuations quick.
 
Well, actually that would lead to serious corruption and theft. Think about it.... get a few people involved and have the assessor over-assess something an investor bought. Boom the taxpayers buy it for way over its value making the investors rich. Ya, no.
 
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

If the appraisal could be considered an offer to buy, they would intentionally appraise properties lower.

What possible advantage would there be to over appraise a bunch of properties?

The appraisers would lose their jobs for costing the county, cities, and schools the money they'd have to pay if people's properties were appraised for more than they could get by selling it.

It would be a powerful incentive for them to intentionally appraise on the low side.

Ex: if they appraised your house at $175,000, but you could get $200,000 for it if you sold, the taxing authorities would never have to buy your home.
.....but if the appraised it at $225,000 to maximize tax revenue, they just might have to buy it.

The real answer is to just do away with property taxes and directly tax all the people living inside the jurisdiction for the services being provided.
 
They would have to buy it? Since towns and cities don't print money who would actually be paying? That would be you and me.
 
Joe King said:
That's why the appraisal needs to be legally considered an offer to buy.

That'd fix over valuations quick.
Click to expand...
So would honest government.

And so would lynching bees.

If the People...lead...the leaders will follow. Remember that bumper sticker, of fifty years ago?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Reality intervenes...the only way to make what you propose, reality, is to have some force bigger than government.

And we couldn't find an organized bloc to stand up even to Face-Diaper insanity.
 
Lancers32 said:
They would have to buy it? Since towns and cities don't print money who would actually be paying? That would be you and me.
Click to expand...
Which is why if they continued over appraising properties, they wouldn't have their jobs very long.

Do you keep employees who have cost YOU lots of money?

The best way to make anyone pay attention, is to make it co$t them.

Edited to add: they wouldn't have to buy unless you accepted their offer.
Like if you couldn't get an offer as high as what they've made you pay taxes on, their appraisal becomes the highest bid.

After all, they say that's what it's worth, so let 'em prove it.
 
Casey Jones said:
So would honest government.
Click to expand...
Apparently we can't have that.

Prolly because soon as most get into the government, the access to OPM corrupts them.


Casey Jones said:
If the People...lead...the leaders will follow. Remember that bumper sticker, of fifty years ago?
Click to expand...

Didn't work, that bumper sticker.

Did it?

The prob is organization and coordination for that to work.
....but soon as any group of people begin to organize with even a hint of working towards real change in government, they get infiltrated by those (usually government spooks). who do not want that charge and work tirelessly to derail the group's efforts.




Casey Jones said:
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Reality intervenes...the only way to make what you propose, reality, is to have some force bigger than government.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I fully realize it's not the way I suggested. I'm only putting forth a rational manner to create an incentive for appraisals to be done accurately.

If we are going to have property taxes, the appraisals for them should be made relative to the reality of what one could expect as reasonable offers if one chose to sell their property.

As it is, appraisals are typically done in such a manner as to maximize the appraisal without fully taking into consideration the actual amount the property might bring.





Casey Jones said:
And we couldn't find an organized bloc to stand up even to Face-Diaper insanity.
Click to expand...
Which is the same reason why the bumper sticker from 50 years ago that you referenced, didn't work.
 
my next years property taxes, if paid monthly, will be $80.00 (a month) below my mortgage payment when I bought my house 30 years ago.
The assholes here don't miss a dime — taxes are recalculated every year.
 

Ok, I'm small town lawyer/doctor crook. I start a real estate investment business. I buy crap hole properties and put a bit of work into them. Say $100,000 into the first deal. Buddy on the assessment team says who that's nice. He decides to value it at $200,000 and I know that is way over market value. You want the City to start buying properties like that for $200,000? They will go broke very, very quickly.
 
The solution is basic. FREEZE property taxes to the assessed value at the time of purchase.

Not even allowing for inflation...all this government pressure to inflate and print? Here's pressure NOT to.

So you bought it at $60k 12 years ago? That's all you pay, is the taxes on $60k. If some lucky jag-off sells his for $300k, that's on the buyer. YOU should be protected.

IMHO this is a reasonable medium between counties' need for revenue, and homeowners' need not to be taxed off their land.

And it's doable. It's what they do in CA...correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that the basic contents of Prop. 13?
 
If it were an offer to buy, they wouldn't appraise it for more than they'd be willing to pay for it. So the supposed $200k valuation would never happen in the first place.
 
Casey Jones said:
The solution is basic. FREEZE property taxes to the assessed value at the time of purchase.
Click to expand...
That would be better than the way it works now.

Best, would just be a head tax and get rid of the property tax.
 
Joe King said:
That would be better than the way it works now.

Best, would just be a head tax and get rid of the property tax.
Click to expand...
And watch Private Equity gobble up land? Without even having any plan for it - it would be no-cost, a "safe" place to park cash.

We'll repeat the European story of the 17th and 18th centuries, when the nobility owned a vast majority of land in some regencies - thanks to the King's indulgence.
 
They don't pay the tax as it is now.

No matter how much the property tax is, they just add it to the cost of the rent.


No corporations should be taxed. Only people.
 
Joe King said:
They don't pay the tax as it is now.

No matter how much the property tax is, they just add it to the cost of the rent.


No corporations should be taxed. Only people.
Click to expand...
They don't hold land fallow.

The way noblemen did 300 years ago in Europe.

That would change, with no property taxes.

Hate to come down on the side of the tax man...but sometimes you do see it winning. In Hamilton County, NY...there was a family business, the Whitney Paper Company, that dated back to the time the current State Constitution was adopted. The Constitution decreed that the Adirondack region, as defined, was to remain "Forever Wild." This was to protect the water table of Downstate and the City (as NYC people call their region).

Whitney came up against hard times - over the years, Canadian pulp mills beat their prices, and International Paper, which held land also in the Park, was more streamlined and efficient in operation. Plus, there was fees attached.

Nonetheless, Whitney Industries, as they came to call themselves, held a huge tract. They declared it

Whitney Park

A PRIVATE PARK

for the promulgation of wildlife.

Hunting, Fishing, Camping, Hiking, Boating, OR TRESPASSING

IS PROHIBITED.​

In the center of it, was the Whitney family's Great Camp, which with time, became the home of the last heir, Mary Lou Whitney, a 70something who had married into the family. Her spousal unit, being some years older, had obligingly gone to the compost lot, and Mary Lou married her tennis coach, who was half his age.

Taxes were low on land in the Park, because land for most, was unsaleable. There was no clear title - all private property holders were essentially squatters. That included Whitney Industries - although, interestingly, the New York Central Railroad and its subsidiary steam-navigation companies WERE given title.

So, there were no comps to justify increased land prices. Taxes were low.

This changed with "Mario the Pious" (as Rush called him) Cuomo, who ramrodded legislation to give clear title to landholders.

Sales launched, and then tax assessments. Soon most of the private smallholdings belonged to NYC professionals.

But Mary Lou Whitney also had HER tax bill launch...and she negotiated for several years, before making a big show of gifting the entire Whitney Park to the Adirondack Park Agency. I believe the residence was retained

But this was prime wild land, between Forked Lake and Raquette Lake. Old growth, conifers and birch. Probably had burned some time back, but was never timbered - the Whitney family was protective of Forked Lake.

The public won.

You might argue that not giving clear title would have kept the tax bill low; and abolishing land taxes would have avoided the problem. But in such a case, Mary Lou and her play-toy would have just hanged on, and a new dynasty unfolded. Until some European potentate offered the tennis dude a billion dollars for it, and then they'd have another royal preserve.

I hold that the frozen tax assessment is the only fair balance.
 
In today's World, I just can't see how that would be an issue.

Corps like Blackrock aren't buying properties to just let 'em sit empty. They are buying them to rent them out in order to get a return on their investment.

Only way to do that, is to rent it out.
.....and the rent covers all of the corp's costs, including taxes.


Even if there are no property taxes, letting a place sit empty costs them money in maintenance and up keep. With no renter, there's no ROI
 
If there was no cost (taxes) they would leave them sit fallow.

Let the value appreciate - unlike fiatdollars as entries on a ledger. That's not that it's preferable to rent-payers; but no longer will it MATTER whether there's rental income. The value will appreciate, parallel to inflation.

So money goes into real property, in huge quantities, and all of a sudden, it's Feudal Europe again, with landless peasants trying to beg or buy a rickety sailing ship to some new world or other.
 
Surely there is a balance to be had. Individuals (ie. people, not corporations) could have an absolute 1 acre exemption for example and property taxes would only apply to real estate in excess of the limit. Something like that (details TBD).
 
pmbug said:
Surely there is a balance to be had. Individuals (ie. people, not corporations) could have an absolute 1 acre exemption for example and property taxes would only apply to real estate in excess of the limit. Something like that (details TBD).
Click to expand...
Well, it's mental masturbation anyway.

As with most lousy ideas, there are too many vested interests desiring the Status Quo. And as I tried to illustrate, some "reforms" can make things exponentially worse.

One thing that NOBODY wants - except private citizens without PACs - is clean, workable reform.

To quote Mike Ferris, Coffee-&-a-Mike...we're now in a griftocracy.
 

Do You Really Own Your Home? A Tax Revolt Says No.​


HARTVILLE, Ohio — A rebellion sweeping the nation gathered adherents in the parking lot outside northeast Ohio’s largest flea market on the Saturday before Memorial Day. Before making their way to stalls selling whirligigs, handmade soap, and peanut-butter Buckeye brownies, dozens of people stopped at folding tables where volunteers hawked petitions to abolish property taxes. Few needed much convincing before adding their names.

“I’m old. I’ve paid my home off,” said Ray Warner, a 72-year-old Akron resident wearing a Cleveland Browns coat to fend off the damp chill. “Why would I pay property tax?”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…