States with no income tax

[farmerEd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrinch Let's freeze property taxes at age 65, and before that everyone pays the same.

Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...that would presume that all folks that are 65 or older, are struggling...which is sometimes, but not always, the case. Property taxes, imo, if they are going to be frozen or discounted, should be based on income, not age...why tax a young couple with kids who are struggling to get by on 25K per year started more than a very wealthy 65 year-old drawing a 6 figure income from their investments?

[mickeyd]

Quote:

Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...

Here is my take on that subject (Not researched or even thought out through).

Senior citizens have paid property taxes for say, 40 years. They paid for infastructure, schools, police/fire etc over that period of time. If local governments say to them "OK, your taxes have brought us this far so were giving you a break now and will not charge you for any "future growth" in your property taxes" This encourages them to continue to pay the reduced taxes until they die or sell and the new taxes will be paid by the next owner of the property.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrinch I live in California. My next door neighbor bought his house in 1960 for $20K. I bought my house in 1985 for $110K (but upgraded the house so my cost basis is now $200K). The couple across the street bought their house last year for $700K. They're basically all the same houses, worth $650K-$750K in today's market. Next door neighbor pays $250/yr in property tax. I pay $2500/yr. Across the street they pay $8000/yr. All to live in the same neighborhood, drive the same roads, and support the same schools. This seems out of whack to me. Let's freeze property taxes at age 65, and before that everyone pays the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldMcDonald Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...that would presume that all folks that are 65 or older, are struggling...which is sometimes, but not always, the case. Property taxes, imo, if they are going to be frozen or discounted, should be based on income, not age...why tax a young couple with kids who are struggling to get by on 25K per year started more than a very wealthy 65 year-old drawing a 6 figure income from their investments?

why stop at basing taxes on ability to pay? why protect people from being forced out of a house they've lived in for 40 years? why not base the taxes on services used? i've never called the police or the fire department (not that i'm superstitious but knock wood). i've never had kids in public school. most of my water use comes from my well but lots of my taxes go to building new water treatment plants. etc.

not that i'd want to live in a town that doesn't have clean water or educated children.

so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

[farmerEd]

>>so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

A. I guarantee you you are not paying to educate my children
B. I don't care if you get to stay in your house or not.

Not sure why you all of a sudden went on a rant...especially if its directed at me. I simply stated I see no legitimate reason to reduce taxes on someone simply because they are 65 or older...IF you are going to reduce them, IMO, the reduction should be on ability to pay...not age.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldMcDonald >>I simply stated I see no legitimate reason to reduce taxes on someone simply because they are 65 or older...

Sorry OldMcD... But I cannot resist.

If you feel so strongly about no reduction in taxes @ 65, you have our permission to pay the additional amount. Send the Treasury an additional personal check each year for the difference. I am sure will spend it.

Now for a serious comment. We have a progressive tax system. Trust me, anyone of middle class means retired or not are paying their full share. Probably more than their full share!

[wabmester]

I never liked the idea of property taxes when there's no transaction and no income associated with the property. I don't mind paying taxes, but just tax me on income.

Apparently, people in the UK didn't like the idea either.

There is currently no ad valorem tax on residential property. Two former systems were dropped because of their extreme unpopularity

wiki link

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldMcDonald >>so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house. A. I guarantee you you are not paying to educate my children B. I don't care if you get to stay in your house or not. Not sure why you all of a sudden went on a rant...especially if its directed at me. I simply stated I see no legitimate reason to reduce taxes on someone simply because they are 65 or older...IF you are going to reduce them, IMO, the reduction should be on ability to pay...not age.

not a rant. was kidding or at best, trying to point out that any and all of the arguments can be a bit silly. bummer though that you don't care if someone is kicked out of their house. so it goes.

[scrinch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothingbum so how about this: i'll stop complaining about paying for your kids' education if you stop complaining about me being able to stay in my house.

You'll notice that there was no complaint in my post. I'm just pointing out that one neighbor pays 32x as much tax as the other, though they live in equivalent houses 150 feet apart. I think I said that it seems out of whack to me. I'm all for all of us supporting government services whether we use them or not. Heck, even the development of ports for sailor bums!

I think that it is more fair for everyone's property taxes to be generally similar and increase at the rate of spending growth rather than have huge discrepancies like those in my neighborhood which are arbitrarily based on the year of home purchase. And I don't mind fixing the property tax level of people at some arbitrary age like 65 because the vast majority go on a fixed or declining income around then. As OldMcDonald points out, that's not completely fair because then the well-to-do get a tax break also. Yep, just like in the Social Security system. I still think it would be a reasonable and fairly simple approach, although my (and your) property taxes would probably go up as a result.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

i really think that this is somewhat dependent upon where people live. different areas deal with different issues. florida didn't vote in "save our home" taxing when property prices went crazy across the country. we did it about 12 or 14 years ago when we saw property diminishing, density increasing and the threat of people losing their houses looming. and it wasn't voted in by a huge majority of people who would benefit. if i remember right it made it by a slim margin. this wasn't a conspiracy against new residents as personally as some of them seem to be taking it. it was simply a lifeline to existing residents.

my little area was pretty much just 5 square miles of a crack den. we did a lot to restore the area over 12 years and it has become a very desirable place to live. at one point of the housing madness my area was the top percentage gainer in the entire country. an area no one had ever heard of before made the front page of the new york times. i can even walk to a freaking starbucks now, as if that isn't the usa definition of desirable. now if we didn't have the soh amendment protecting us, i don't know the facts but i'd imagine more than 1/2 this area's residents would have to sell their homes. on top of that, because this area was so lower class on the economic scale only 10 years ago, we have many older residents. and so on top of soh statewide, this city recently voted in another $25k exemption for them. because locally that's what we needed to do to protect our residents.

[renferme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldMcDonald Never understood the logic of giving property tax breaks to people once they reach a certain age...that would presume that all folks that are 65 or older, are struggling...which is sometimes, but not always, the case. Property taxes, imo, if they are going to be frozen or discounted, should be based on income, not age...why tax a young couple with kids who are struggling to get by on 25K per year started more than a very wealthy 65 year-old drawing a 6 figure income from their investments?

How about this: most 65 year olds (and older) are on a fixed income. Keep increasing their property taxes and soon they will have to move. Why do you assume that most if not all 65 year olds are wealthy. They're not!
Young couples with kids (I used to be in that category) have the opportunity to make more money as they proceed down their chosen career; very few seniors have that opportunity.

[farmerEd]

If they are 65 and older, and are struggling...then they would qualify for any "low-income" tax breaks...I actually think the property tax sucks, personally. Its my number one expenses after groceries. I am all for eliminating it, reducing it, locking it down or even changing to an income tax etc...but if discounts are to be given, they should be given to people that are having a hard time paying them...not based on age. (in my opinion). A 66 year old person with a million dollar salary shouldn't get a break on the property taxes at the expense of the younger person living next door trying to get by on $24K....which is the kind of things that happen when you give breaks based on age alone...65 an older, and income under a certain level...OK (with me)....just my opinion whcih comes with a full money-back guarantee.

[renferme]

people 65 and older can be struggling or just getting by and still not quality for assistance. Really.