Well, the law's the law, right....

[Alabuckeye]

It's not so much lower taxes as it is this particular issue. And that issue is that someone still has to pay for their primary residence. That they can never get truly free and clear. It just strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Especially given that the home can be taken away for nonpayment. Perhaps that can be remedied partially by only allowing the state to put a lien but not allow them to foreclose until after the owner(s) die. Let them foreclose on the estate.

My house is paid for.  I am free and clear.  i still pay $533 a year in local taxes because my home is in a community that provides community services.  Sure, my kids are grown so I am not getting any 'personal' benefit from the public schools, nor did I when we sent them to private school, but I am part of a community.  Police come if I call.  Fire service is available when I need it.  I have roads to get to state and highway roads.  Infrastructure has an ongoing cost.

Tax something other than a primary residence. What if someone 85 years old can't pay? Tax your church's property. They get all those benefits too and free load. You aren't free and clear. What happens if you can't cover that bill? And mind you that is ridiculously low compared to what people pay in most places.

I understand that what I'm paying is ridiculously low......or, it's more reasonable than most places without the bureaucratic nonsense that many states and localities have.

It's the cost of living somewhere.  People complain about the COL in Cali.  If you can't afford it, MOVE.....there isn't some God ordained right for people to live a certain place.  All that mindset does is invite government intervention to 'correct the problem'.

As far as 85 year olds being unable to pay their property taxes, I could see that in Jersey or LA or other tax heavy localities.  I don't know what the answer is there.

[3rdgensooner]

I do know the answer. Don't tax a person's primary domicile.

[Alabuckeye]

I do know the answer. Don't tax a person's primary domicile.

I understand that the 'need' is debatable......but let's for discussion purposes say that the revenue level is correct where it is at in a given municipality.  We do away with property taxes......how is that money replaced?

[3rdgensooner]

I do know the answer. Don't tax a person's primary domicile.

I understand that the 'need' is debatable......but let's for discussion purposes say that the revenue level is correct where it is at in a given municipality.  We do away with property taxes......how is that money replaced?

We  eliminate taxes only on a primary domicile. All other property is still taxed. We may need a commercial increase and eliminate the freeloaders like churches.

[Alabuckeye]

I do know the answer. Don't tax a person's primary domicile.

I understand that the 'need' is debatable......but let's for discussion purposes say that the revenue level is correct where it is at in a given municipality.  We do away with property taxes......how is that money replaced?

We  eliminate taxes only on a primary domicile. All other property is still taxed. We may need a commercial increase and eliminate the freeloaders like churches.

This sounds suspiciously like a Democrat "We will tax the rich more" approach.  Commercial increases mean increases in prices to consumers.....because businesses don't pay taxes.  And the vast majority of churches are 40-70 members, so they aren't fountains of funds either.  The Joel Osteen money factories are few and far between.

[3rdgensooner]

I do know the answer. Don't tax a person's primary domicile.

I understand that the 'need' is debatable......but let's for discussion purposes say that the revenue level is correct where it is at in a given municipality.  We do away with property taxes......how is that money replaced?

We  eliminate taxes only on a primary domicile. All other property is still taxed. We may need a commercial increase and eliminate the freeloaders like churches.

This sounds suspiciously like a Democrat "We will tax the rich more" approach.  Commercial increases mean increases in prices to consumers.....because businesses don't pay taxes.  And the vast majority of churches are 40-70 members, so they aren't fountains of funds either.  The Joel Osteen money factories are few and far between.

Not really. The little churches don't have that much property. The ones in my area have a lot of valuable property that is untaxed. I think it's be worth it to allow people the ability to get free and clear on their homes.

[lrrps21]

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"