Posted on 01/09/2008 3:52:03 AM PST by databoss
If the information in this article is correct, then this woman’s sole source of income (her Social Security check) comes out of my paycheck every two weeks. So by your logic, this woman should live wherever the hell I — and all her other benefactors who work for an honest living in this country — tell her to live.
And what if I don’t want any of that? Or what if I’m willing to pay for is as I need it?
We homeschool our kids, I own forearms and I carry fire insurance. I pay road taxes when I buy gas.
As it is now, am I a free man? Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t think so.
forearms= firearms lol
Once this woman went on a fixed income, she should have sold her property and moved to more moderate accomodations. I don’t expect granny to try to maintain her same standard of accommodations depending on a gubmit check.
Isn’t that nice. Instead of LOWERING taxes they allow the OLD person at 72 years old WORK for her taxes.
Get’s “620 Social Security check per month ($7,440 a year), and has to pay $12,000 a year in property taxes on the house that she has lived in for 43 years.”
Hope she can handle working like this when she’s 90! If not will the street be her new home?
Liberals are so compassionate, aren’t they?
Come to NJ. THAT’s CHEAP 12k a year!
We pay allot more than that!
Her house appears to be a modest rancher surrounded by newly built McMansions. Of course, her assessment and taxes get dragged up by the big yuppie houses surrounding her.
It happened to my In-Laws in PA. Property taxes on their 150 Thousand home were eating them alive. Living on what little savings they had and social security, they were not making it. So they had to sell their place and move to Indiana for a 90K place losing much of their nest egg money in the process.
Property taxes should be based on income, since if the income is lower than the taxes the state takes your home. Not a good idea for America.
And when you need help most I hope that you find the same amount of sympathy, very little. Of course you will have several choices...
Slavery is another way of saying "100% tax rate."
so you’d rather be a slave owner, abusing citizens for financial reasons? Does she have any rights at all? Are you willing to reimburse her for her property when you kick her out on the street, or would she be lucky that you let her breather air after you ruin her?
Why does it matter what she has or has not? Does she have a greater or lesser stake in the government than her townsmen?
ML/NJ
Alternatively, what would be the value of a $500,000 house if it were sitting in a clearing in the woods without any of those? What price would the Market support? Loose change. One WOULD own it free and clear, of course, because no one else would want it.
While I tend to agree with you that a government does have its place, and there has to be some sort of tax(es) to pay for it, I would note that when I was growing up on Long Island about 20 miles east of Manhattan, we had all those things you mention. (except the 911 system, but we did have garbage collection, snow plowing, water, &c.) But back then I would guess that property taxes were a much lower percentage of a family's annual expenditures and there were no sales taxes at all. Now on LI, it's 8% or more. Income tax did exist then but at rates probably a fifth of what they are today. The old woman in question probably wouldn't have had to pretend to work someplace for three quarters of the year (Do the math: 12000/7) in order that she could remain in her house.
ML/NJ
If your house is on fire, would you tell the fire department not to respond? And if so, would the fire department be obligated to respond anyway because your burning house presents a threat to an adjacent property owner?
As for your first point . . . I look forward to the day when government services are financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. In the meantime, I find it a bit hypocritical for an elderly person to complain that she can't afford to "pay" after decades of benefitting from the system that she now finds unaffordable.
Serf city, here we come!
Spanish or old Norman French?
No, property taxes should be based on something that provides a tangible representation of a property's impact on taxpayer costs. A home's value does not (i.e., a single person living in a 15-bedroom house requires fewer services than 5 Mexican families living together in a small Cape Cod), so it should be based on things like the size of the property (this is a good indicator of drainage area), water usage, sanitary sewer usage, number of registered vehicles on site, etc. And "public" schools should not be funded through property taxes in any way, either.
If this woman were in dire need of financial assistance I would be more than willing to help her out.
The notion that my paycheck must be raided on a regular basis to support everyone who "needs help" is something that runs counter to every founding principle on which this nation is built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.