property tax or no property tax

which one of these do you want to cut

this is what property tax pays for

• Public Schools & Education: Teacher salaries, school operations, transportation, and special programs
• Public Safety: Police departments, fire stations, and emergency medical services (EMTs).
• Infrastructure & Transportation: Building and repairing local roads, highways, bridges, sidewalks, and public transit.
• Community Services: Public libraries, parks, recreation centers, street cleaning, and storm water or sewer management.

Top | New | Old

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

Well some of that has other sources as well. Often from income (both federal and state) taxes and sales taxes.

Hence higher gas taxes, energy taxes and so forth.

You're making this out far too simplistically. And your comment is forgetting renters and leasers. Which actually is far more than the majority now. Most renters and leasers live in cities.

Newark, New Jersey (79.15% renters), Union City, New Jersey (79.9%), and the Bronx, New York (80.7%).

And they are not paying property taxes. So yes they must pay higher rent. This is why property taxes MUST be higher in cities.

The problem is the distribution of the taxes is higher on the single family dwellings. Rather than on the rent and lease owners.

Per square foot the the single family dwellings pay far more. And massive rent and lease complexes hardly anything.

So you have a serious tax leverage problem when you just have a property tax, even with the increase in value of the complex.

No apartment or lease is over 1,600 square feet. Which happens to be the average square foot single dwelling house. Apartments are often around 400 square feet. If not less. A quarter the size of a house if not smaller.

Notice I'm not even referring to federal HUD subsidies and other federal benefits. Like corporate property improvement deductions.

Now ask why the complex owners don't pay their fair share of taxes?

It's because the income is not the equivalent to the house owners. Most people would rather really live in a house, yet can't afford to.

So the complex owners are making exorbitant profits off the house owners in taxes.

This is why the whole economy needs to be revamped. Trickle down can never work, which is the very basis of capitalism. Why Reaganomics is the fallacy that it was proven to be.

Basic housing must be a right. It's not like there's not enough room. The corporate greed must stop.

AthrillatheHunt · 56-60, M

The trick is to live in a town w high property taxes when you are raising kids so they benefit from the schools , then sell when they graduate and move to a place w shitty schools.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

markinkansas · 70-79, M

@MarkPaul Reagan lowered taxes in the thought that if a company made more money it would hire more people .. that did not happen then it was let them ship the companys to other countries for cheap work and .. here we are.. .. i live threw those years ..

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@markinkansas But Reagan also promised to cut federal overhead and the federal overhead grew. And he didn't. I lived through those history lessons. Simply letting property taxpayer money flow uncontrollably out of fear that public services will be "defunded" or that local communities will be left stranded to the whims of state or federal bureaucrats is devoting blind loyalty to the status quo is crazy-talk.

Public services are not free whether it is the local schools or the concept of "free" healthcare for all. It's not a matter of fantasizing there won't be any cost, but it is a matter of the wisdom and discipline to expect an unchecked and uncontrolled tax scheme is a better choice than the fear that comes from losing all public services.

A wiser choice isn't defunding and it isn't Reagan's rhetoric of less government while growing government, it is reengineering the entire tax scheme. That might mean lowering property taxes so more people can afford homes (which will increase property tax revenue) and raising surcharges, etc. in a way that forces local governments to cap their spending. But leaving everything the way it is because of Reagan is as much of a red flag as thinking Cry-Baby-trump alone can fix things. In either case though, public services will continue to be supported despite the cries from local, state, national, and worldwide leaders that life will never be the same or as good if there are restrictions on tax money that can be collected.

The reason why this has even become an issue, and I can assure you, it is worldwide (perhaps not property tax specifically, but taxes in general) is because large segments of the worldwide population can't properly live while being taxed so much. And this goes back to when governments first started to implement taxes over a thousand years ago. I know, I lived through those years (in history class).

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...