TexasCHLforum.com

Why should property owners be the only ones paying for much of the services offered?
I would welcome an income tax so ALL pay if they eliminate property taxws.

Too many older folks lose their homes when they retire because they can't pay the rent the state forces.

Moby wrote:Why should property owners be the only ones paying for much of the services offered?
I would welcome an income tax so ALL pay if they eliminate property taxws.

Too many older folks lose their homes when they retire because they can't pay the rent the state forces.

because we seem to like taxing the middle class.

cheezit wrote:

Moby wrote:Why should property owners be the only ones paying for much of the services offered?
I would welcome an income tax so ALL pay if they eliminate property taxws.

Too many older folks lose their homes when they retire because they can't pay the rent the state forces.

because we seem to like taxing the middle class.

that statement made no sense

XinTX wrote:When we had to go house hunting, we passed on several homes. We had a substantial amount for a down payment from our insurance settlement (lost our previous home to Ike). But we passed on several locations due to the fact that the property taxes (+ MUD taxes some had) would have been more (if spread out over a year on a per month basis) than our mortgage payment. In some cases, significantly more. So I wouldn't mind seeing them eliminated. But what concerns me more is, what will be the 'replacement' tax revenue stream. No way government will do the same with less money.

There are several possibilities. Increase sales tax so everyone pays their fair share. Reduce services to a level consistent with capitalism instead of socialism. Both would be great but I don't see it happening when parasites can vote to suck more blood, sweat and tears from the productive members of society.

Moby wrote:Why should property owners be the only ones paying for much of the services offered?
I would welcome an income tax so ALL pay if they eliminate property taxws.

Too many older folks lose their homes when they retire because they can't pay the rent the state forces.

Renters pay right along with property owners. Or did you think that landlords were just eating the taxes?

if a person is paying a mortage the taxes are included in the payment, if that property is being rented out the payment is covering the taxes too.

the biggest....difficulty comes when someone has lived a home for so long that not only are they receiving the senior discount but they are paying against the purchase price, not the value. Thankfully in our case, the value of my in-laws home isn't....ummm, spectacular, as in some cases. We've even talked about buying out my sister-in-law when the time comes....it'll be a decent rent house or good to use for the kids to start living on their own.

you know what? I moved so much as a kid, Navy brat....I literally didn't realize that it was possible for people to live in the same place for most of their lives. Wasn't 'till I was in college 'till I figured out people some people did that.

WildBill wrote:

sunny beach wrote:

WildBill wrote:My parents bought their house for $10,000 and paid property tax based on that value. When my mother died the house was worth $650,000. That was below the one million for the death tax, so we didn't have to pay that, but we did have to pay property tax on a $650K house, rather than a 10K house.

Property taxes are paid for a full year in Texas. A change in ownership doesn't require paying for the same year twice.

But a change in ownership requires the new owner to pay higher taxes the next year based on the new sales price, correct? That is my point.

In my dealings with real estate and property, you are charged based on the county assessed value. There is no connection between the sale price and the county figure unless you protest and use that to make your case. The county is not supposed to have access to the actual sale price. The county recorded deed says "10 and no/100 dollars"

Topbuilder wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sunny beach wrote:

WildBill wrote:My parents bought their house for $10,000 and paid property tax based on that value. When my mother died the house was worth $650,000. That was below the one million for the death tax, so we didn't have to pay that, but we did have to pay property tax on a $650K house, rather than a 10K house.

Property taxes are paid for a full year in Texas. A change in ownership doesn't require paying for the same year twice.

But a change in ownership requires the new owner to pay higher taxes the next year based on the new sales price, correct? That is my point.

In my dealings with real estate and property, you are charged based on the county assessed value. There is no connection between the sale price and the county figure unless you protest and use that to make your case. The county is not supposed to have access to the actual sale price. The county recorded deed says "10 and no/100 dollars"

I am not familar with the details Texas property taxes, but over a period of time the assessed values go up when average sales prices increase for a certain area. The assessed values are usually a certain percentage of the market actual value. The sales prices that you see on realtor websites are calculated by the property taxes. Perhaps one of the realtors on the forum can explain it better than me.

Beiruty wrote:And who will pay the balance, more sales taxes?

State income tax.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:And who will pay the balance, more sales taxes?

State income tax.

Chas.

I do not object to paying taxes. That is part of my duty as a citizen. Paying property tax vs. state income vs. increased sales or VAT tax are all trade-offs. One way or another, the government needs money to perform various services. No matter where or how we are taxed, our elected officials need to control government spending and stop waste. That is the bottom line.

I am a new [10 year] resident of Texas. I came here from California where the State Income tax is about 11%, the property taxes much higher than Texas, the cost of houses are triple the prices in Texas, and a sales tax of about 8.5%, depending on the county and city. Even with all of these outrageous tax rates, obviously the State of California can't balance their budget.

As I tell people in Texas, the only things I miss about California are the mountains, the ocean and the weather.

SewTexas wrote:if a person is paying a mortage the taxes are included in the payment

Mine aren't. I have to write a big fat check to the county every year in January.

Property taxes are one thing. Somebody has to pay for roads, services, etc.

The school (ISD) portion of our property taxes, which is the major portion, is what fries my shorts. We've never had, nor will we ever have, any of our spawn in the local ISD. Why are we forced to pay for other people's offspring, and teacher's pensions, in the local school system under the guise of "property" taxes? Why can't there be a separate tax for schools paid by the users and benefactors of the local ISD's? You know, kinda' like sales tax, income tax, etc., etc. What is socialism, btw?

School tax should not be a property tax. School tax should be a sales tax administrated by the state to give each district an equal share, irregardless as to whether it is a rich or poor district. Stop the Robin Hood effect. Poorer districts need a higher percentage of funds and this way the state could take care of the problem. This way everyone would pay school tax.

MeMelYup wrote:School tax should not be a property tax. School tax should be a sales tax administrated by the state to give each district an equal share, irregardless as to whether it is a rich or poor district. Stop the Robin Hood effect. Poorer districts need a higher percentage of funds and this way the state could take care of the problem. This way everyone would pay school tax.

Help me understand why childless people should pay school taxes? What's the difference between that and non-union workers being forced to pay union dues?

Oldgringo wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:School tax should not be a property tax. School tax should be a sales tax administrated by the state to give each district an equal share, irregardless as to whether it is a rich or poor district. Stop the Robin Hood effect. Poorer districts need a higher percentage of funds and this way the state could take care of the problem. This way everyone would pay school tax.

Help me understand why childless people should pay school taxes? What's the difference between that and non-union workers being forced to pay union dues?

It is generally accepted that public education costs ought to be paid by the public at large, not by parents alone.

The problem I see is not how they fund it but what they do with the money. I am an advocate for closing public schools and giving parents a voucher to spend as they see fit. Some will chose wisely, find a provider that educates their kids as they wish, and hope. Those private providers will spring up to meet demand. Others will squander the money on worthless nonsense, but at least they won't be interfering with the ones who DO want, and will work to have, a quality education. As it is, the public schools are little more than baby-sitting services for prepubescent children and dating services for postpubes.