Freeze property tax rates, no raising of tax rates from the original purchase price of the house or commercial property (until it is resold).
Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to work based on imaginary money, but real value?
Universal Disclaimer for the Public Domain, Version 1.4, dated Oct 10th, 2009
a) The views expressed by this website and the author to include all electronic forms of communication are not representative of advertisers, or other third parties that may store and or transmit the messages from this private computer, which you may observe at your own risk, with no liability to the authors, or any party related to transmitting, storing, or any other aspect of the material involved, including email correspondence, which is not necessary to the function of the website, and may or may not be archived. No personal information exchanged will be shared without your consent, or provided to third parties with out the express permission of the parties and, or, individuals concerned.
b) The author(s) of this content and those who may interact with it in various known or unknown electronic methods do not give permission to any third parties to share or provide private personal information who may operate as part of the internet communications system, including all parties, who may technically intercept communications due to the nature of network conditions beyond both the author's legal and physical control, unless those communications represent violations of the law, upon which the author, and or web site will cooperate to pursue any legal remedies.
c) The views expressed by the author or website may or may not contain factual information, due to the use of sarcasm or parody. The views may or may not be complete, either by design, to pre-empt being called a liar even if telling the truth, or by error due to typographical, grammer, or other technical communication problems not realized or imagined, or the possibility of views based on false or missing information, or with the intention of being used for entertainment purposes only, and not as a definitive judgement on the actions, character, or reputation of an organization, individual, or groups of individuals, with the intent of communicating with a limited group of people, and not the general public, however no distribution restrictions apply for fair use purposes described by the US Copyright Office, if no other restrictions are present or communicated, with all commercial proceeds associated with the distribution of the content to remain the sole possesion of the original author.
d) Any humor if used, is not intended to offend people, and may be designed to apply the principals of peer pressure through reverse examination to accomplish the communication of principals or ideas that consist of traditional or proposed social values that are proven to advance the common good, and are not meant to discredit, disparage or demean any person or entities in any professional or personal manner, by attempting to share through the eyes or opinion of the author, for which it is expected that you read at your own risk, with no liability held to the author or any third parties who may store, transfer, or forward this message to others, in the traditions of free speech, fair use, and to play a positive role in a society that believes that graphically depicting male homosexuals having sex, and other unusual sex acts is considered free speech or that the use of abortion to limit Negros, Latinos, and other races from "spreading the wealth around" as a "matter of privacy" (which the author does not condone).
e)The use of humor is a known ingredient in providing teachable moments, and to validate and even demonstrate artistic expressions that are not shared by others, as demonstrated by many valuable scientific observations that were scoffed at in the past, yet proven to be quite valid decades later, upon which the humor used in all electronic communications by the author are based, in the principals and traditions of free speech and pursuit of happiness, and may not be a representation of others, including God.
f) Additional use of automated anonymous page use tracking computer scripts (web page programs) may be licensed by www.google.com, for bandwidth verification or potential advertisement opportunities or incorporation of web master tools in the future.
g) Advertisements that may appear are not necessarily endorsed by the author, either by admission, or by silence, nor are related links, that may be provided for all or any of the following known or unknown purposes, but not limited to, informational, educational, and for the purpose of giving copy right credit referal information under the terms outlined in the conditions applied to the term "fair use" regarding conversations and print under US Copy Right Law.
h) It is the opinion of the author that effective 1 December, 2009, the proposed regulations from the FTC violate the first and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution, by infringing through economic affliction the burden without compensation all financial details concerning the communications of both free enterprise and opinion, and other civil rights such as "punishment must be fair" and not at the "discretion" of public officials, or that advertisers are assumed to be guilty of deception when United States law provides that you are innocent before being proven guilty, and are in fact demonstrations that there are current members of Congress that neither understand the spirit of the law our founding fathers made for the United States of America, or understand how they work in the opinion of the author, as of October 10th, 2009, especially in light of anticipated, and hopefully defeated, legislative taxes relating to energy use and the burden of publishers and advertisers to comply with the law and manage the environment, and in light that there are various consumer protection agencies, including the Better Business Bureau, which has free consumer information.
i)Although the content provided meets or exceeds those new requirements to the knowledge of the author, and modifications to version 1.3 of this disclaimer is a result of the opinion of the author that blogging is another definition for a potentially infinite number or forms of electronic communication, as such the author will retroactively apply this version, 1.4 to all forms of previous communications, when and wherever possible, as time allows, in order to properly convey the intention of the author and to demonstrate an enthusiasm to comply with the law, and not enthusiastically pursue getting high on cocaine as often as possible as Barack Hussein Obama has admitted in his book (paraphrase, synopsis), according to (mmm, mmm, mmm (sonic emphasis)) Rush Hudson Limbaugh, (mmm mmm mmm (sonic emphasis)).
j) Use of this disclaimer for either personal or professional use is permitted with no restrictions. These restrictions or disclaimers do not prohibit the author from pursuing or communicating in a truthful manner, or guarantee that the audience will understand all things as intended, and, or result in being called incoherent, or even a Chicken Chaser!
> Freeze property tax rates, no raising of tax rates from the original > purchase price of the house or commercial property (until it is > resold).
> Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising > appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently > force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, > especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
> Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, > and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all > these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to > work based on imaginary money, but real value?
Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
>> Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising >> appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently >> force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, >> especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
>> Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, >> and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all >> these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to >> work based on imaginary money, but real value?
>Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is >actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, >since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than >he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
Where in the country are home values higher than they were in, say, 2005? They should be dropping for most people. -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:22:56 +0900, "Brenda Ann" > <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org> puked:
>> "MagneticEnergy"<butterfly77...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1da8fa7e-ec60-4b95-a926-76f3f00db7c4@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>> Freeze property tax rates, no raising of tax rates from the original >>> purchase price of the house or commercial property (until it is >>> resold).
>>> Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising >>> appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently >>> force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, >>> especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
>>> Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, >>> and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all >>> these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to >>> work based on imaginary money, but real value?
>> Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is >> actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, >> since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than >> he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
> Where in the country are home values higher than they were in, say, > 2005? They should be dropping for most people. > -- > lab~rat>:-) > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
There are a number of regions in Cook, Lake and DuPage counties, Illinois, where home values have gone up. My own went down from the peak in 2007. The YL's place in Buffalo Grove went up.
Interesting to note, however, that both locations are currently higher than they were in 2005.
There's a lot of generalizing, in all these discussions. The truth is, that not everyone's property values have dropped. Some are higher, now, than they were at the previous peak. Few, to be sure. But it is happening.
The general result is that scheduled tax reassessments have been delayed in areas where there has been dramatic value loss, but reassessments have been accelerated in areas where there has been value increase to cash in on increased revenue stream.
Rule of thumb: the government will never do with less. Whether you do or not.
>On 11/5/09 08:13 , lab~rat >:-) wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:22:56 +0900, "Brenda Ann" >> <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org> puked:
>>> "MagneticEnergy"<butterfly77...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1da8fa7e-ec60-4b95-a926-76f3f00db7c4@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>> Freeze property tax rates, no raising of tax rates from the original >>>> purchase price of the house or commercial property (until it is >>>> resold).
>>>> Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising >>>> appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently >>>> force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, >>>> especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
>>>> Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, >>>> and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all >>>> these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to >>>> work based on imaginary money, but real value?
>>> Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is >>> actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, >>> since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than >>> he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
>> Where in the country are home values higher than they were in, say, >> 2005? They should be dropping for most people. >> -- >> lab~rat>:-) >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
> There are a number of regions in Cook, Lake and DuPage counties, >Illinois, where home values have gone up. My own went down from the >peak in 2007. The YL's place in Buffalo Grove went up.
> Interesting to note, however, that both locations are currently >higher than they were in 2005.
That's interesting, and good for you. In S. Florida, we have it among the worst in the country. My home is still worth twice what I paid for it in '99.
> There's a lot of generalizing, in all these discussions. The >truth is, that not everyone's property values have dropped. Some are >higher, now, than they were at the previous peak. Few, to be sure. >But it is happening.
> The general result is that scheduled tax reassessments have been >delayed in areas where there has been dramatic value loss, but >reassessments have been accelerated in areas where there has been >value increase to cash in on increased revenue stream.
> Rule of thumb: the government will never do with less. Whether >you do or not.
Right? After the peak of the housing boom down here, we're wondering all the money went when taxes were high and why the Town couldn't go back to the budgets prior to 2005.
There's a lesson to be learned here with all of these expensive programs this administration is throwing out there. The taxes will go up and it will be hard to bring them back down. -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
> > Freeze property tax rates, no raising of tax rates from the original > > purchase price of the house or commercial property (until it is > > resold).
> > Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising > > appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently > > force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, > > especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
> > Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, > > and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all > > these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to > > work based on imaginary money, but real value?
> Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is > actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, > since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than > he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
> >>> "MagneticEnergy"<butterfly77...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>news:1da8fa7e-ec60-4b95-a926-76f3f00db7c4@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >>>> Freeze property tax rates, no raising of tax rates from the original > >>>> purchase price of the house or commercial property (until it is > >>>> resold).
> >>>> Big city politicians frequently trample over citizen rights by raising > >>>> appraisal values, instead of controlling spending, and frequently > >>>> force people into the real estate market or into foreclosure, > >>>> especially when citizens can not get pay raises.
> >>>> Rising property values are pointless when the property is not sold, > >>>> and that is a problem of REAL GREED in America? AND you won't get all > >>>> these kooky ideas to help millions of Americans that do NOT want to > >>>> work based on imaginary money, but real value?
> >>> Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is > >>> actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, > >>> since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than > >>> he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
> >> Where in the country are home values higher than they were in, say, > >> 2005? They should be dropping for most people. > >> -- > >> lab~rat>:-) > >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
> > There are a number of regions in Cook, Lake and DuPage counties, > >Illinois, where home values have gone up. My own went down from the > >peak in 2007. The YL's place in Buffalo Grove went up.
> > Interesting to note, however, that both locations are currently > >higher than they were in 2005.
> That's interesting, and good for you. In S. Florida, we have it among > the worst in the country. My home is still worth twice what I paid > for it in '99.
> > There's a lot of generalizing, in all these discussions. The > >truth is, that not everyone's property values have dropped. Some are > >higher, now, than they were at the previous peak. Few, to be sure. > >But it is happening.
> > The general result is that scheduled tax reassessments have been > >delayed in areas where there has been dramatic value loss, but > >reassessments have been accelerated in areas where there has been > >value increase to cash in on increased revenue stream.
> > Rule of thumb: the government will never do with less. Whether > >you do or not.
> Right? After the peak of the housing boom down here, we're wondering > all the money went when taxes were high and why the Town couldn't go > back to the budgets prior to 2005.
> There's a lesson to be learned here with all of these expensive > programs this administration is throwing out there. The taxes will go > up and it will be hard to bring them back down. > -- > lab~rat >:-) > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>>There's a lesson to be learned here with all of these expensive >>programs this administration is throwing out there. The taxes will go >>up and it will be hard to bring them back down.
>And that's the gospel according to townhall---amen
>We know it.
How do you think that they are going to be paid for? By magical pixies? -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:15:36 -0800 (PST), RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> puked:
>Here is a 'basic' New Contract for America ! ># 1 - Federal Help Main Street >-not- Wall Street and the International Bankers
Which is the exact opposite from what has been happening lately. And by lately, I'm including the past ten months. -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
> There are a number of regions in Cook, Lake and DuPage counties, > Illinois, where home values have gone up. My own went down from the peak > in 2007. The YL's place in Buffalo Grove went up.
> Interesting to note, however, that both locations are currently higher > than they were in 2005.
> There's a lot of generalizing, in all these discussions. The truth is, > that not everyone's property values have dropped. Some are higher, now, > than they were at the previous peak. Few, to be sure. But it is happening.
> The general result is that scheduled tax reassessments have been > delayed in areas where there has been dramatic value loss, but > reassessments have been accelerated in areas where there has been value > increase to cash in on increased revenue stream.
> Rule of thumb: the government will never do with less. Whether you do > or not.
If spending is constant and all assessed property went down 10%, the mil rate will go up 10% because it's determined by dividing the amount they're spending by the total assessed value of all property on the tax roll.
To reduce taxes, you need to cut spending or you need new development that doesn't include many school kids. (Around here a house that sells for $800,000 is assessed at $560,000 and won't generate enough property tax to pay for one student in school)
Most of a town or city budget is for payroll and benefits for union workers. Those are very hard expenses to control because of binding arbitration. As a result, you need to be aggressive about controlling spending in every line item you can. It also pays to look at the long haul because sometimes spending a little extra money now will save you a bunch of money down the road.
In my city, our mil rate is 18.61 - well below surrounding towns, and we provide services like trash collection that other area towns don't include. Fiscally conservative Republicans have dominated our government for 18 years.
If you're involved in your local government or are contemplating getting involved, I can suggest some ideas that have helped us the most. (email me direct)
On Nov 5, 8:59 am, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is > > actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, > > since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than > > he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
> -aka- California's Prop 13
Uh, no, Prop 13 was introduced -and the campaign paid for- largely by big business; who collectively designed it to take a huge chunk of the property-tax burden off of *their* shoulders and shift it onto those of California's middle-class wage-earners.
Here's how it works: Under prop 13, property tax assessments may not be raised from the level they were at when 13 passed, but this only applies to the folks (and corporations) who happened to already own their property at that time. Anyone buying a new home, or buying one that has been previously owned, is taxed at the present-day rates, and their taxes are *not* frozen: they can be -and are- reassessed regularly.
This means that the longer you've owned your property, the lower your tax rates are as compared to those who've bought real-estate since 1978. And since nearly *all* homeowner-owned property has changed hands one or more times since '78, comparatively few middle-class homes are still being taxed at the low original rates, while the really *huge* (and far more valuable) tracts of land owned by big agribusiness and corporations such as the railroads are still paying taxes at the 1978 rate, and their taxes will *never* go up.
So, since the property taxes of big businesses have essentially been frozen ever since 1978, the middle-class new home buyer has assumed more and more of the property tax burden as time has gone by, and will assume even *more* of it in the future if nothing changes.
This is not exactly what you'd call a tax system designed to spread the load equally, and help middle America.
> > There are a number of regions in Cook, Lake and DuPage counties, > > Illinois, where home values have gone up. My own went down from the peak > > in 2007. The YL's place in Buffalo Grove went up.
> > Interesting to note, however, that both locations are currently higher > > than they were in 2005.
> > There's a lot of generalizing, in all these discussions. The truth is, > > that not everyone's property values have dropped. Some are higher, now, > > than they were at the previous peak. Few, to be sure. But it is happening.
> > The general result is that scheduled tax reassessments have been > > delayed in areas where there has been dramatic value loss, but > > reassessments have been accelerated in areas where there has been value > > increase to cash in on increased revenue stream.
> > Rule of thumb: the government will never do with less. Whether you do > > or not.
> If spending is constant and all assessed property went down 10%, the mil > rate will go up 10% because it's determined by dividing the amount > they're spending by the total assessed value of all property on the tax > roll.
> To reduce taxes, you need to cut spending or you need new development > that doesn't include many school kids. (Around here a house that sells > for $800,000 is assessed at $560,000 and won't generate enough property > tax to pay for one student in school)
> Most of a town or city budget is for payroll and benefits for union > workers. Those are very hard expenses to control because of binding > arbitration. As a result, you need to be aggressive about controlling > spending in every line item you can. It also pays to look at the long > haul because sometimes spending a little extra money now will save you a > bunch of money down the road.
> In my city, our mil rate is 18.61 - well below surrounding towns, and we > provide services like trash collection that other area towns don't > include.
- Fiscally conservative Republicans have dominated - our government for 18 years.
Domination by Republicans . . . The EVIL of It All ! shake-off the domination of the evil ones :o)
> If you're involved in your local government or are contemplating getting > involved, I can suggest some ideas that have helped us the most. (email > me direct)
Property Values can go Up and Down {mostly up} -but- Government Spending Always Goes Up Up and Away ! .
On Nov 5, 12:22 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:59 am, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Now there is a proposal I can really get behind. Tax property on what is > > > actually PAID for it, not what some pencil pusher says it should be worth, > > > since the property owner isn't getting any more use out of the property than > > > he did when it was bought, major improvements notwithstanding, of course.
> > -aka- California's Prop 13
> Uh, no, Prop 13 was introduced -and the campaign paid for- largely by > big business; who collectively designed it to take a huge chunk of the > property-tax burden off of *their* shoulders and shift it onto those > of California's middle-class wage-earners.
Hey May Be Big Government is Evil Too -note- Trusting in an Entity "Government" -wrt- Government the fundamental 'corpus' of Corporation : Created By Itself For Itself and Eventually Taking On a Life Unto Itself.
Wow Big Business + Big Government : It's a Double Whammy !
> Here's how it works: Under prop 13, property tax assessments may not > be raised from the level they were at when 13 passed, but this only > applies to the folks (and corporations) who happened to already own > their property at that time.
- Anyone buying a new home, or buying one - that has been previously owned, is taxed at - the present-day rates,
- This means that the longer you've owned your - property, the lower your tax rates are as compared - to those who've bought real-estate since 1978. - And since nearly *all* homeowner-owned property - has changed hands one or more times since '78,
"ALL" is an Absurd generalization since clearly I personally know of several/many California Home Owners who are still in their Homes from the 1970s to this day -so- Many/Most would be more appropriate and valid in this statement of 'supposed' facts.
- comparatively few middle-class homes - are still being taxed at the low original rates,
- (and far more valuable) tracts of land owned by big - agribusiness and corporations such as the railroads are still paying
> taxes at the 1978 rate, and their taxes will *never* go up.
Resulting in a Lower Cost of Products {Goods} and Services to many {most of the} End Users Consumers/Customers the Citizens of California.
Like It Sort of Like All 'Balances-Out' in the End.
> So, since the property taxes of big businesses have essentially been > frozen ever since 1978, the middle-class new home buyer has assumed > more and more of the property tax burden as time has gone by, and will > assume even *more* of it in the future if nothing changes.
Thus many Big Business have 'stay' in Cali-4-Ni-A especially those that are "Land" Based like AGRA. Business => Jobs => Home Ownership >>> Government B-Taxes => J-Taxes => P-Taxes >>> Government
- This is not exactly what you'd call a tax system - designed to spread the load equally,
|
