Posted on 01/30/2008 3:45:42 PM PST by Lorianne
Edited on 01/30/2008 3:49:56 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I was not talking about private citizens. I was talking about government and the fact that the way they have set things up is if you do not pay your property taxes, they CAN take your house. Therefore, the ultimate owner of all homes is the government, not you.
Someone's got to pay to maintain the courthouses. Someone's got to pay the judges to mediate disputes. Without an independent judiciary, "my property" mean nothing more or less than what I can take and hold by force. The rule of law requires records and courts. They don''t come for free. That means taxes.
Your right, but I never said anything like that. You evidently assumed I meant that we do not need any of those things, including taxes. Wrong assumption. I will not -- no sane person can -- dispute that taxes are too high and too much of that money is spent on frivolous matters with little return. But when you stake out a position that all tax is theft, that no taxes are legitimate, you're talking about a position that is at odds with reality. We must have a government, and it will not come for free. Accept that conclusion, and then you're just haggling over the price.
It is always amazing to me how so many here, when responding to a post, put in their responses things that were never said, that they think the poster meant.
All tax is theft? Where did you get that? I never said, nor implied that, and do not believe that. Of course we need some taxes.
Government does not come for free. Again, did I say or imply it should?? No. Your assumptions of what I really meant are way off base.
What I do believe is there is a more equitable, better way to collect taxes. But, I will not hold my breath on that one. The government (and politicians therein) love the fact that they ultimately control all residential and commercial property. We will never be the equivalent of the Freemen in old England, unfortunately.
Please, next time just take the words as written. When someone believes they know what another person is thinking, they are almost always wrong.
Only a fool, or a someone forced to, would sell in this market
What I don’t like about taxes in the county I live in is this distribution:
Welfare: 47.08%
Education: 20.57%
Public Safety 16.24%
See what wrong here?
It's politically incorrect to point out forbidden truths. You can now expect the Progressive Police to round you and your family up and take you to a re-education center for re-orintation.
Just wait until local muni bonds are downgraded to junk status. Property taxes will go up like a Fourth of July bottle rocket.
One of the most ridiculous provisions in the tax law considers those who suffer foreclosures on a primary residence and thereby lose their house to have incurred income equal to the value of the loan or the house. If such taxpayers possessed the money to pay taxes on this imputed income, then they probably wouldn’t lose their homes through foreclosure. Such taxpayers therefore are financially unable to afford rental accommodations even if they decide against continuing to pay the loan because every dollar that they can acquire must go toward taxes, an immutable obligation. These taxpayers are therefore too affluent and hardworking to qualify for food stamps or welfare assistance but too indebted and severely taxed to obtain adequate food or housing. Professional welfare recipients aren’t affected because unable to get a mortgage loan, they never left the projects.
Translation: we need lower taxes.
I won't argue with that
According to my coworker, no. It was a no-down interest-only ARM with a 100% balloon payment due at seven years. Only a total idiot would take that kind of loan.
“If you’ve borrowed the money for the home AND the downpayment, how is it YOUR home?”
I see debt people.
“there was a Japanese academic economist who came out with a paper then a laymen’s book about how homes had switched from being an asset to a liability in most developed nations.”
This was a commonly held view in America around 1900. The rich tended to hold their wealth in investments and rented their living quarters. You sometimes see this reflected in movies and stories written in the 20s and 30s.
Not to mention that you can live in your car, but you can’t drive your house.
Thanks!
I also wonder what the statistics would be if those numbers included only people who were losing their only home? Did I say that right? What I mean is, how much of this moaning and groaning is going on among people who are losing a second home that they were fixing up to try and make some money.
I got one for 11% and was VERY happy to do so (though I went from an area where I had a 7% mortgage and the DOWNPAYMENT ON MY NEW HOME WAS EQUAL TO THE SELLING PRICE OF MY OLD ONE!)
“I like them and they are nice people but that does not repeal the laws of economics.”
No, that’s government’s job /s
Kind of like New Orleans.
Ann Arbor is inundated from the economic depression in Michigan.
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.