• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paying school tax on 2nd homes?

a777pilot said:
In a society that is based on free market capitalistic principles, it makes no sense to tax profits/income or private personal real property on an annual basis. Debating who and how much of income and property ought be taxed is a total waste of time. What ought to be debated is what is taxed.

I say that spending/transfer of wealth ought to be taxed.
Click to expand...

That doesnt make any more philosophical sense that taxing profits, income, or property. In a free market system, you pay for what you use at an equal rate (ie everyone pays 99c for a burger). Where you have general usage, everyone pays equally. For example, national defense is a shared expense. Roads, mail, schools, healthcare, are used differently per individual and therefore should be fee based.

So for example, split govt into general usage, which is lets say 800bn a year, divide that cost by 300 million people (minus the poor). Everything else is fee based.
 
Gaius46 said:
But that doesn’t achieve the end of guaranteeing some level of education for everyone. What do you with children of the poor who cannot afford to educate their kids? Are they SOL? Uneducated kids are more likely to commit crime. There’s a cost associated with that even if you aren’t a victim yourself. Uneducated people make ****ty citizens in a free society. There is likewise a cost to that.
Click to expand...

I dont see how the current system is working any better. The poor still dont take care of their children, they turn into criminals and I pay on both ends. The schools turn out uneducated kids, the colleges turn out socialists, and I lose every which way. The answer is I dont know what the solution is. Maybe education is the PROBLEM, though.
 
MTAtech said:
So, you are wealthy enough to own a vacation home and you are complaining about the school taxes you are required to pay on it? I think you should feel grateful that you live in a country that gave you the opportunity to do well enough to own two homes -- and pay the damn taxes.
Click to expand...

Rich people are evil and are not entitled to complain about anything!
 
holbritter said:
Rich people are evil and are not entitled to complain about anything!
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly the message I was sending you.

OK, I hear loud screams from the right side of the room. Parsing those screams, I hear the following argument:

Theft! Tyranny! OK, I hear you. This can’t be argued on rational grounds; I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep their money, but whatever.
 
lefty louie said:
I get your sarcastic reply and raise you this, when we bought in 2002, the taxes were all of $2,200 per yr. 15 years later they are over $6,500.
Click to expand...

Well, that is what happens when cost of living goes up along with development.
 
lefty louie said:
What I'm saying is, I pay a school tax within the state on 3 properties I own, the rental units could easily have children in them so I don't mind paying school taxes on them even if kids don't currently occupy the property, however taxing me twice for something is overboard. A good retort to paying the extra school tax is this. We lost our 2nd home to super storm Sandy, my insurance paid a certain amount, but FEMA gave us nothing (I'm not saying they should, but FEMA paid to every other home owner if it was their first home), because it was a 2nd home. If I can pay taxes like everyone else, why don't I get the full benefit like everyone else?
Click to expand...

Did you get an education?

Do you want to live in a nation where generally the poor are illiterate and unable to rent your houses?

Do you want to have a world where the rich take all and give none?

You did well. Great, congratualtions, now pay some tax and be pround of it.
 
Critter7r said:
Since I own homes that were already built (in the mid 1900s or earlier, and in an historic district at that), I'm not contributing to sprawl.

The state and county need X amount of dollars to function. The county- and state-wide tax revenues would not decrease under your hypothetical tax system. It seems to me that at best it would only serve to raise the tax on vacant and/or undesireable property.
Click to expand...


Well, I was not talking about you specifically, but since you brought it up I will say this: we all contribute to sprawl, and that includes the purchase of old homes because that only means someone else who would've bought that house is more likely to purchase a new home on the outskirts. This is not a condemnation of anyone, it is just how our system is set up. However, if one contributes more to it by buying excess properties then they should pay more.

You are correct in assuming my tax system would place a larger burden on vacant lots. Part of its purpose is to curtail sprawl which leads to countless societal/environmental problems. Many sites stay vacant because the landholder is holding the property for speculative purposes. When so many people struggle to pay their mortages/rents, I see something morally wrong with people profiting off something they never created, but that everyone needs.
 
lefty louie said:
An Example would be my main residence, where over the last 15 years taxes have only gone up 20%. Compare that to 200% and there is clearly something wrong with the system or town itself.
Click to expand...

Not all communities develop at the same rate. I am not saying there aren't areas where the taxes aren't too high, but it is quite likely the area where the 200% increase occurred developed a lot in the last 15 years compared to where you mainly reside.
 
lefty louie said:
Why not tax everyone per lot size, not house size and fixtures?
Click to expand...

I will agree with half of what you say here. Houses/improvements should be taxed minimally or not at all. However, rather than going by lot size, the tax should be based on the market value of the lot (minus the house value).
 
Geoist said:
Well, I was not talking about you specifically, but since you brought it up I will say this: we all contribute to sprawl, and that includes the purchase of old homes because that only means someone else who would've bought that house is more likely to purchase a new home on the outskirts. This is not a condemnation of anyone, it is just how our system is set up. However, if one contributes more to it by buying excess properties then they should pay more.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not as if I'm buying the property and then having it sit vacant in an effort to drive up housing prices! :) By providing a rental home at a lower price than what buying would be, it could just as easily be said that I am de-contributing to sprawl by keeping that renter from putting up an inexpensive manufactured home on the outskirts of town.
 
lefty louie said:
What I'm saying is, I pay a school tax within the state on 3 properties I own, the rental units could easily have children in them so I don't mind paying school taxes on them even if kids don't currently occupy the property, however taxing me twice for something is overboard. A good retort to paying the extra school tax is this. We lost our 2nd home to super storm Sandy, my insurance paid a certain amount, but FEMA gave us nothing (I'm not saying they should, but FEMA paid to every other home owner if it was their first home), because it was a 2nd home. If I can pay taxes like everyone else, why don't I get the full benefit like everyone else?
Click to expand...

You own three properties, including a "summer home" and an investment property, and you're looking for sympathies re: taxes? hehe... Maybe start a crowd funding campaign? You could call it the "**** the kids, I'd rather be rich" Initiative.

Well, at least you're doing your part to convince folks that socialism should be a thing... ;) :lol:
 
Critter7r said:
Well, it's not as if I'm buying the property and then having it sit vacant in an effort to drive up housing prices! :) By providing a rental home at a lower price than what buying would be, it could just as easily be said that I am de-contributing to sprawl by keeping that renter from putting up an inexpensive manufactured home on the outskirts of town.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And while you are paying the property taxes, I assume you are (or will eventually) profit from your rental properties. The burden would be lessened on people like you. The burden would be greater on those who are just sitting on the property for years waiting on their neighbors to develop so they can profit off that.
 
lefty louie said:
Do a degree it does, you need to know what is a need and what is a want.
Click to expand...

Oh please. If the two were correlated, then ghettos would be churning out Einsteins like there is no tomorrow. But because of the severe stress induced by institutional poverty--something you are clearly ignorant about--they have to redirect their mental energy to just stay alive. This is one of many reasons that institutional poverty is so difficult to escape.
 
Geoist said:
Fair enough. And while you are paying the property taxes, I assume you are (or will eventually) profit from your rental properties. The burden would be lessened on people like you. The burden would be greater on those who are just sitting on the property for years waiting on their neighbors to develop so they can profit off that.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand what your alternative tax structure does. I would assume that the value of property wouldn't change that much for vacant properties, but would go down significantly if the value of any structures on a property were subtracted. In order for the county and state to retain their revenues, the property tax rates would have to skyrocket across the board to make up for the huge reduction in taxable value. And that doesn't seem like it would necessarily preclude a vacant piece of land in the middle of nowhere still being worth very little and having a low tax burden on the owner.
 
holbritter said:
Rich people are evil and are not entitled to complain about anything!
Click to expand...

Are you poor, who made you dictator? In my world you need some skin in the game to even vote.

Geoist said:
Well, that is what happens when cost of living goes up along with development.
Click to expand...
Cost of living went up what 3% per yr on avg? If you knew the town you'd know that it hasen't developed at all, unless you call a new Wal Mart development.

Tim the plumber said:

Did you get an education? Define education. My parents educated me well enough to be who I am and what I've become.

Do you want to live in a nation where generally the poor are illiterate and unable to rent your houses? I live in that nation, just look at the droves of section 8 and welfare housing, seems the poor never make it any better as a whole.

Do you want to have a world where the rich take all and give none? You mean like Kings and queens?

You did well. Great, congratualtions, now pay some tax and be pround of it.
Click to expand...
I'm happy paying a fair share, not happy getting milked.

Geoist said:
Not all communities develop at the same rate. I am not saying there aren't areas where the taxes aren't too high, but it is quite likely the area where the 200% increase occurred developed a lot in the last 15 years compared to where you mainly reside.
Click to expand...
If you want, send me a PM, I'll give you the zip code and you can tell me if it's improved 200%.
OlNate said:
You own three properties, including a "summer home" and an investment property, and you're looking for sympathies re: taxes? hehe... Maybe start a crowd funding campaign? You could call it the "**** the kids, I'd rather be rich" Initiative.

Well, at least you're doing your part to convince folks that socialism should be a thing... ;) :lol:
Click to expand...
No I own 4 properties, 1 3 family, 1 condo, 2 single family homes one which is my summer home. Who said I'm looking for sympathy, I said above I didn't want it, read. Fair taxes, not taxed for something I get no direct benefit from, however I also commented above that another member made a "FAIR POINT" on the matter, please read. And no, not screw the kids, but I prefer to donate or give my own way, something you may not even consider doing with your narrow mind set.

Phys251 said:
Oh please. If the two were correlated, then ghettos would be churning out Einsteins like there is no tomorrow. But because of the severe stress induced by institutional poverty--something you are clearly ignorant about--they have to redirect their mental energy to just stay alive. This is one of many reasons that institutional poverty is so difficult to escape.
Click to expand...
 
lefty louie said:
Are you poor, who made you dictator? In my world you need some skin in the game to even vote.

Cost of living went up what 3% per yr on avg? If you knew the town you'd know that it hasen't developed at all, unless you call a new Wal Mart development.

I'm happy paying a fair share, not happy getting milked.


If you want, send me a PM, I'll give you the zip code and you can tell me if it's improved 200%.
No I own 4 properties, 1 3 family, 1 condo, 2 single family homes one which is my summer home. Who said I'm looking for sympathy, I said above I didn't want it, read. Fair taxes, not taxed for something I get no direct benefit from, however I also commented above that another member made a "FAIR POINT" on the matter, please read. And no, not screw the kids, but I prefer to donate or give my own way, something you may not even consider doing with your narrow mind set.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.
 
lefty louie said:
I/e own a 2nd home we use on weekends and summer vacation, we don't rent it out so there is no possible way of us ever using the school district, yet we pay about 50% of or $3,000 property tax towards the school district.

It's gotten to the point we're thinking about listing the house and spending that 6K on a summer rental for 6 weeks, we'd still save thousands over the course of a year and not have the headache of homeownership.
Click to expand...

Okay...

Do you have a point or something?

Just because you don't send your children to a particular school doesn't mean that you don't benefit from there being a good school in the area. Good schools improve the whole community and likely raise the value of your property.
 
MrWonka said:
Okay...

Do you have a point or something?

Just because you don't send your children to a particular school doesn't mean that you don't benefit from there being a good school in the area. Good schools improve the whole community and likely raise the value of your property.
Click to expand...
Do you have an original point, the one you just mentioned has been said a half dozen times so far.
 
lefty louie said:
Do you have an original point, the one you just mentioned has been said a half dozen times so far.
Click to expand...

Probably because it's the only rational response that can be given to your OP.
 
So glad that you deem yourself rational, but repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't come across as rational so much as it does, "I want some attention."
 
lefty louie said:
No I own 4 properties, 1 3 family, 1 condo, 2 single family homes one which is my summer home. Who said I'm looking for sympathy, I said above I didn't want it, read. Fair taxes, not taxed for something I get no direct benefit from, however I also commented above that another member made a "FAIR POINT" on the matter, please read. And no, not screw the kids, but I prefer to donate or give my own way, something you may not even consider doing with your narrow mind set.
Click to expand...

Ya...I mean, I could go into how you benefit from having an educated citizenry going into your retirement years to pay for your social assistance, or the fact that taxes in general are designed to share government costs across all citizens, if you only had to pay for what you use, why have taxes, but I assume that if you have managed to acquire four properties in your life, provided you didn't inherit them or something, you are smart enough to understand how this all works, despite identifying as a libertarian, so...rather than go in too many circles, I'll just assume you needed to vent.

Feel better. :)
 
Why can't we just have a civilized discussion on the pros and cons of, and/or the reasoning behind, municipalities charging double the tax rate on homes that are not the owner's primary residence?
 
Critter7r said:
I guess I don't understand what your alternative tax structure does.
Click to expand...




I would assume that the value of property wouldn't change that much for vacant properties, but would go down significantly if the value of any structures on a property were subtracted.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what structures are on the property. If they are structures that are a blight and cannot be of use, then the value probably goes down (as I imagine it does now) because it would require removal. Structures that are still of use would generally increase the value of the property.


In order for the county and state to retain their revenues, the property tax rates would have to skyrocket across the board to make up for the huge reduction in taxable value. And that doesn't seem like it would necessarily preclude a vacant piece of land in the middle of nowhere still being worth very little and having a low tax burden on the owner.
Click to expand...

Currently, we only tax a certain percent of a site's value. I would like to see a revenue neutral plan, increasing the portion of the tax on site value while simultaneously decreasing the portion on improvements. If there are little-to-no improvements on the site, as we see on vacant lots, then the burden on that landholder would be greater than it would be on the landholder who properly utilizes his/her lot.
 
OlNate said:
Ya...I mean, I could go into how you benefit from having an educated citizenry going into your retirement years to pay for your social assistance, or the fact that taxes in general are designed to share government costs across all citizens, if you only had to pay for what you use, why have taxes, but I assume that if you have managed to acquire four properties in your life, provided you didn't inherit them or something, you are smart enough to understand how this all works, despite identifying as a libertarian, so...rather than go in too many circles, I'll just assume you needed to vent.

Feel better. :)
Click to expand...


My parents left me nothing but my mind ( much of the smarts I have stored) and a work ethic. My properties were purchased by me, not real hard to do IMO, but that's like putting a bow in ones shoes, it's only easy once you know how. Sure I get how govt. works, I also get how they take from us every day and cause us much grief when forced to pay interest on money they barrow without us having much of a real say in the matter. Not sure what me feeling like libertarian has to do with things but, the govt. should stay out of my business affairs. A good vent is always a plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom