@sh76 saidDid you read my post entirely? People should not lose homes THAT THEY OWN because they can’t afford to pay for their homes.
They should never lose something because they can't afford it? Huh?
What if they can't pay their mortgage? Does your opinion apply there too?
Why would a bank ever make a mortgage loan if they're not going to be able to foreclose?
Mortgage paid off. No bank involved.
@AThousandYoung saidOwnership doesn't imply no mortgage. I do "own" my house even though it is secured by a mortgage loan.
Did you read my post entirely? People should not lose homes THAT THEY OWN because they can’t afford to pay for their homes.
Mortgage paid off. No bank involved.
But okay, so you're exempting mortgage foreclosures. How is that different from property taxes that are necessary to provide essential services to the community?
Part of living in a community is paying your share of the public services needed to sustain it.
What about HOA fees? Should an HOA not be allowed to evict a condo owner who refuses to pay HOA fees?
@AThousandYoung said"People should not lose homes THAT THEY OWN because they can’t afford to pay for their homes"
Did you read my post entirely? People should not lose homes THAT THEY OWN because they can’t afford to pay for their homes.
Mortgage paid off. No bank involved.
LOL...if they own it how do they have to pay for it?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidBecause property taxes you illiterate pendejo
"People should not lose homes THAT THEY OWN because they can’t afford to pay for their homes"
LOL...if they own it how do they have to pay for it?
@sh76 saidI'm not "exempting" mortgage foreclosures. Aren't you a conservative? Don't you know the difference between the government taxing people who have no income vs the free market?
Ownership doesn't imply no mortgage. I do "own" my house even though it is secured by a mortgage loan.
But okay, so you're exempting mortgage foreclosures. How is that different from property taxes that are necessary to provide essential services to the community?
Part of living in a community is paying your share of the public services needed to sustain it.
What about HOA fees? Should an HOA not be allowed to evict a condo owner who refuses to pay HOA fees?
If an elderly retired person with no income owns their home and it is not collateral for a loan then the government should not be able to tax them into homelessness. In particular if their home value goes up and property taxes go up people can lose their homes even if they budget for property taxes!
https://www.beliveaulaw.net/2013/01/some-seniors-are-losing-their-homes-due-to-unpaid-property-taxes/
An 81-year-old woman in Rhode Island was evicted shortly before Christmas from the home she had lived in for more than 40 years – because she failed to pay a $474 sewer bill.
A corporation then bought her house at a tax sale for $836.39…and later resold it for $85,000.
While this is an extreme case, it’s a symptom of a growing trend. More and more seniors around the country are being forced to pay large, unnecessary fees – or even losing their homes – as a result of unpaid property tax bills.
@sh76 saidIf the HOA was part of the purchase agreement and the house was put down as collateral for the agreement then it's the purchaser's choice to accept or not.
What about HOA fees? Should an HOA not be allowed to evict a condo owner who refuses to pay HOA fees?
If the HOA forms after the house is purchased it should have no power whatsoever over the homeowner.
@AThousandYoung saidwell that would be >because they cant pay their property taxes<
Because property taxes you illiterate pendejo
dumbass
4 edits
Pennsylvania is an interesting case study. A homeowner gets two "property tax" bills each year: a "real estate tax" which might cost, say, $700, and then a whopping "school tax" which costs $4000. It doesn't matter if one has no kids: you pay the same school tax as the Smiths across the street who have 9 kids (assuming you and the Smiths have houses of equal value).
And yet there is also, in most places, a 1% local income tax. I have no idea what this pays for. Sewer? No: that's a separate semiannual bill. A fire department? Well, except in the big cities all the fire departments are volunteer, so it's just down to the equipment. Police? Not for us, we happen to live in an "unincorporated" region, so it's the state police that cover us (paid for by our state income tax). Sidewalks, at least? No, that's left to homeowners to pay for when they try to sell their place (if there is no sidewalk already, that is).
So yeah, I have to say, money just seems to pour down a bottomless rat hole around here, with little to show for it but potholed roads, dysfunctional traffic signals, and bloated fleets of smog-belching school buses that tool around all hours of the day screwing up traffic.
Part of the solution to the myriad inequities of property taxes may be to replace them with a land value tax, which taxes land itself, but not improvements (such as buildings) made on the land. Institute an LVT, and just watch all those blighted urban properties that speculators squat on for decades get put to good use at the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
And as an aside, the bulk of school expenses should be covered by a state income tax. It removes an onerous burden from homeowners, and ensures that the funding a school receives is not determined by how wealthy or poor the surrounding community happens to be. It's a simple fairness issue.
1 edit
@AThousandYoung saidI'm not coming from a "conservative" angle on this. I'm coming from an angle of simple common sense. Someone has to pay for snow shoveling and fire departments and police and pothole repair, and the people who live in the area are logically the people who should pay for it. Common sense.
Since when did conservatives argue that it is a good thing to be required to pay the government to pay for the expenses of "the community"?
Isn't there some rule that says taxes should not be confiscatory?
If you don't pay property taxes, you're not contributing to the upkeep of the neighborhood and don't deserve to live there.
Obviously, everything has common sense limitations. Someone should be evicted over a $474 outstanding bill. You don't get to run to the extreme case and draw a broad rule. Let's say that instead of owing $474, a person ignored his property tax bill for 5 years and owes $100,000 in taxes, late fees and interest. Do you simply let him keep living in the house when he's ignoring his responsibility to maintain the neighborhood's services?
You want to allow an elongated payment plan for true hardship cases? Fine. But a blanket rule that nobody should ever be foreclosed on for failure to pay property tax? That's just another example of a meaningless platitude that's unworkable in real life.
@AThousandYoung saidObviously, I'm talking about someone who either joined the HOA or bought the property from someone who did. HOAs and condo boards arrange for garbage pickup, snow clearing, lawn mowing, parking lot maintenance, and other things that nobody would do on their own in a condo complex. If you don't want to or can't pay for those things, then find a different place to live.
If the HOA was part of the purchase agreement and the house was put down as collateral for the agreement then it's the purchaser's choice to accept or not.
If the HOA forms after the house is purchased it should have no power whatsoever over the homeowner.
@Soothfast saidThanks for demonstrating the rampant ineptness of government. I couldn't have made a better argument for capitalism myself.
Pennsylvania is an interesting case study. A homeowner gets two "property tax" bills each year: a "real estate tax" which might cost, say, $700, and then a whopping "school tax" which costs $4000. It doesn't matter if one has no kids: you pay the same school tax as the Smiths across the street who have 9 kids (assuming you and the Smiths have houses of equal value).
And ...[text shortened]... rmined by how wealthy or poor the surrounding community happens to be. It's a simple fairness issue.
I also get hurt be school tax since I don't use the public school system. But once you're going to have public schools (and a good argument exists for using a voucher system instead), someone has to pay for it. And whether it's paid for with property tax or income tax is six of one vs. half a dozen of the other.
The only issue you're raising is whether school tax should be funded locally or on a state level. That's hardly even a matter of principle; it's really just a practical question. Personally, I like to see people fund their localities, as people have a greater interest in being involved in the management of these activities when they have more skin in the game.
@sh76 saidYou obviously did not read the article I posted. Sales taxes could be raised to compensate for it. And property taxes do not pay for road maintenance.
Then who pays for snow shoveling, road maintenance, fire and police, etc.? If you eliminate property tax, you have to raise income taxes, and then what have you really accomplished?
While I have no problem with giving owner-occupied houses a bit of a discount, having the people who live in a community pay for its essential services is common sense.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/states-road-funding-2019/
Property taxes are regressive and hurt the poor disproportionately. Property taxes should be abolished. They are also unconstitutional. Read the article.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidProperty taxes are communism. Nobody has full ownership of their land if failing to pay property taxes results in government taking your land away. That is called leasing land, not owning it. Buying the land is just a down payment on the lease.
I explained that to you, you ignore it.
It doesnt matter what they call the tax, its the same money, same person, same pocket where the money comes from, whether its called income tax or property tax is irrelevant
Anybody who supports property taxes under the threat of foreclosure is a communist. Are you a communist?
@Ponderable saidRead the article for the explanation you always had since the creation of this thread.
So I am in the team Jean Jacques Rosseau here:
[quote]“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the ...[text shortened]... to be collected, why a tax on "property" should be exempt would need to have to be explained to me.
https://www.newstarget.com/2025-09-14-groundswell-against-property-taxes-fight-ownership-equity.html