31–40 of 80 posts
Ok wait. So the guy paid $3500 to clear $14,000 in back taxes, right? Then the person who owed the taxes paid him $7000. Why couldn't the owner just pay the city $3500? Or even the $7,00 she paid to the other guy? Why is the city willing to take $3500 from a random person but not the owner?
If the current residents can't afford the property taxes, they need to relocate. On a personal level is very unfair, if its unfair at a societal level, we can debate. But the reality still stands- If you can't pay your property taxes, you need to move. It is a financial imperative. For Detroit in general, these pejoratively described "gentrifiers" could be the best thing to happen in a long time. What kind of failing…
>On a personal level is very unfair, if its unfair at a societal level, we can debate. This has already been debated many times. The right answer is: property taxes on improvements are a malign disincentive, but property taxes on location/land value are a beneficial incentive for greater development. Detroit's location value is basically zero.
Ok wait. So the guy paid $3500 to clear $14,000 in back taxes, right? Then the person who owed the taxes paid him $7000. Why couldn't the owner just pay the city $3500? Or even the $7,00 she paid to the other guy? Why is the city willing to take $3500 from a random person but not the owner?
Why is the owner willing to simply not pay their taxes? (We're missing a lot from the story.)
Why should homeowners lose their homes to non-payment if their streets are falling apart, their schools are sub-par, their personal safety is non-existent, their water pipes are 100 years old, and their government declares bankruptcy?
Selling off in tax delinquency court, homes with deeds that are free and clear, is an insult worthy of sustained organized protest. The fact that it doesn't happen is remarkable.
Ok wait. So the guy paid $3500 to clear $14,000 in back taxes, right? Then the person who owed the taxes paid him $7000. Why couldn't the owner just pay the city $3500? Or even the $7,00 she paid to the other guy? Why is the city willing to take $3500 from a random person but not the owner?
It's obvious in many cities, not just Detroit, that government has not been able to hold up its end of the property tax agreement by providing and properly maintaining essential services such as water, streets, sewers, schools, fire and personal protection, and countless other "promises". Why should homeowners lose their homes to non-payment if their streets are falling apart, their schools are sub-par, their persona…
It's obvious in many cities, not just Detroit, that government has not been able to hold up its end of the property tax agreement by providing and properly maintaining essential services such as water, streets, sewers, schools, fire and personal protection, and countless other "promises". Why should homeowners lose their homes to non-payment if their streets are falling apart, their schools are sub-par, their persona…
Ok wait. So the guy paid $3500 to clear $14,000 in back taxes, right? Then the person who owed the taxes paid him $7000. Why couldn't the owner just pay the city $3500? Or even the $7,00 she paid to the other guy? Why is the city willing to take $3500 from a random person but not the owner?
"One of the things linking them: lack of information. Low-income homeowners are eligible for tax exemptions. While many residents would meet the requirements, they must file requests before their taxes are due, neither of which are readily known pieces of information, Mullane says. Owners can buy their homes back with debts cleared at auction for $500 as a solution of last resort." It seems the problem is a lack of c…
Which is the kind of sociopathic behaviour I'd expect from a sleazy corporate. It's meant to be public service, not public pillaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property tax is really onerous for those who own their houses but fall on hard times. Its implementation can be terribly unfair, because it essentially says that you don't really own all of your property. You own most of it, but if you don't kick that little bit up every year, then you're out on your duff and what you get back is subject to the whims of the auction bidders. That's a troubling implication for me. I'm…
> Property taxes could be eliminated and other taxes raised for a revenue neutral solution. The perfect solution for this is to eliminate both property tax and the mortgage interest tax deduction and let them cancel each other. For most people it makes no difference, but we stop kicking little old ladies out of the homes they own just because they can no longer afford the property taxes.
It's obvious in many cities, not just Detroit, that government has not been able to hold up its end of the property tax agreement by providing and properly maintaining essential services such as water, streets, sewers, schools, fire and personal protection, and countless other "promises". Why should homeowners lose their homes to non-payment if their streets are falling apart, their schools are sub-par, their persona…
Not to mention the insane amounts that municipalities are paying towards the massive pensions and benefits for retired workers. How many existing police officers are cut in order to pay the pensions of the previously retired?
I will never understand this. I agree life-time pensions are unsustainable. I argue constantly for a) all new public employees being enrolled in a 401k and pensions being phased out and b) offering younger workers buy-outs, allowing them to invest their contributions themselves in reward for opting out of the pension system.
But that said - every pensioner out there worked for that pension. It was in their contract as an employee, a perk that often kept them in public service jobs, teaching your kids, putting out your fires, and so on.
Every single person that argues for pulling the tablecloth out from under pensioners would be ferociously mad at the idea of any company canceling or reneging on a contract.
To me, canceling or changing the pension of a retired (or soon to be retired) worker is the same as a bank deciding that you can't keep your house after all, even though you're not delinquent - it's just that the bank could use the value of your house, and breaking a contract is no big deal.
Get off of the backs of pensioners - they put in their time, worked often for decades, contracted the promise of some security in retirement, but hey, we have a financial crisis, and suddenly they're freeloaders.
Pretty much everything about pensions is broken and unsustainable, but that's not on the worker, that's on those that made the promise, and not keeping it is just the lowest form of horrible.
Apologies for the rant. I accept the down voting I expect.