Conversation Starter: Property Taxes and the GOP

Hello Everyone. One of the things that I’ve struggled with over the years of doing various posts here and elsewhere is that I, quite frankly, am not an expert on anything. This makes me very self-conscious about my posting because I feel like I’m misleading people into making mistakes in their own thoughts and arguments. So, I’m going to try this new approach of calling my posts “conversation starter” with the hope that if I am wrong, or by shock and chance hit the mark a bit, readers can feel free to add opinion or correct me.

Any of us may be wrong by a long stretch or just a little bit, and I think we hold our opinions for fear of being made to look foolish or naïve. I would like to preface this with the reminder that these are my opinions, and much like assholes…., yeah. So… here goes.

One of the current position points for the GOP, and I’ve seen this especially in Indiana, Ohio and Florida, is the idea that property taxes are an unfair burden upon property owners (https://auditor.bcohio.gov/news_detail_T2_R36.php). I’ve heard them use the analogy that it is paramount to buying a meal from the resturant, paying for the meal, and then being required to return yearly to pay more for that original meal purchase.
The human mind is going to immediately gravitate to the idea that the removal of a tax is a good thing. This, of course, is the MAGA and GOP mode of operations: appeal to the unthinking and immature mental reflex of their base towards their own ends.
What the less wealthy MAGA likely hasn’t done, is recognize that this turns a tax burden upon the less wealthy, again. Here is my thinking:

If a wealthy person buys land, say, measuring 100 acres for his own home. Conceivably, a similar 100 acres would house 300-400 middle-class homes, or more if we consider apartments. In a simple math, because I know it doesn’t quite work this way but give me some latitude here, those two 100-acre portions of land would pay give-or-take the same tax. That means, by my simple measure, one family is paying the same tax as 300-400. Now, that doesn’t really seem very fair, and so the GOP/MAGA support the end of that tax.
But, as we all know, the bills never stop. The money for roads, schools, parks, police and fire, etc., has to come from somewhere. A great deal of that comes from property tax. If it doesn’t come from the property tax, where will it come from? I would guess an increase in sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll state taxes. In this case, now the food, gas, entertainment, police and fire and whatever else, is going to be payed by that 3-400 middle-class families at a similar rate as the 1-wealthy family — meaning the tax burden has shifted to the middle-class families. Further, the wealthy person is going to have an even better financial position, which he will likely use to buy more land.

Ok, this is my opinion. What do you think??

Randy

Unknown's avatar

Published by blundersonword

18 thoughts on “Conversation Starter: Property Taxes and the GOP”

  1. It is alleged an old Chinese guy once said (but that’s not where I heard it) “It is better to be a Jack-of-many-things than a Master of one … or none”

    You know where to find answers, that’s a skill-set right there, and given the complexity of modern society that’s the best it can be

    It’s ok to question your conclusion, not how you came to it …

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Well, TenBears, I am definitely not the master of one… or any. I’m working on a machine at work, trying to understand why it suddenly decided not to work. My end conclusion, it’s haunted… What I’m saying is that sometimes I just need to dive into something and find a way to make it make sense. Mostly why i gave up on politics – that never makes sense unless you do as our old blog friend Miles would say and “follow the money”.

      Thanks for the support.

      Randy

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. Hi. Randy in my experience, I have never found commenters afraid to state their opinions and any corrects on a post. It is fun to have a conversation on ideas I agree. As you say it takes money to run a government and the entire systems for a community and some wealthy simply hate the idea of paying for things. The shifting of the tax burden from those who can most easily afford the costs onto the people who can least afford to pay those costs has long been a goal of those with money and who relish a desperate workforce. I think of Walmart as one of the most profitable large companies who has the most workers on local, state, and federal assistance due to the low wages the workers are paid. Reagan began the race to cut taxes on wealthiest people and corporations. He pushed through congress changing the tax rate on the highest incomes from 70% to 50% In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars). That’s a high tax rate. Over the next three decades, the top federal income tax rate remained high, never dipping below 70 percent. That let the US do incredible things like build an interstate highway system and go to the moon. A single income could feed and house a family of four or five. There was money for free good educations for K-12, and college costs were affordable for the public. We were building an educated middle class and the upper incomes hated it. Educated people are harder to control, and workers who have a quality of life and savings are not forced to take any job at any low wage in unsafe working conditions. So the upper incomes bought the government and the SCOTUS. The highest income tax rate was lowered to 37 percent for tax years beginning in 2018. The additional 3.8 percent is still applicable, making the maximum federal income tax rate 40.8 percent. However with all the work arounds and schemes the wealthy have created for themselves very few pay any taxes at all, not even inheritance taxes or capital gains. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I’ve seen it alleged that the wealthy can just not bother with taxes. File ridiculous claims that mischaracterize incomes or just forget to include them, or that claim overstated deductions or just make them up. They get away with it because audits are for the little people who can’t afford lawyers.

      It’s also been alleged that this is a big reason for gutting funding for the IRS – so audits are less likely for the wealthy.

      It’s also been alleged that really big corporations with huge incomes have bought enough government to legally claim to owe not taxes at all on incomes in the billions due to loopholes and workarounds purchased by those corporations. (by purchased – I do mean they’ve got enough legislators in their debt to push through damaging (for the commong good) tax breaks.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Hi MDavis. I have some thoughts, perhaps they are not fair, that the wealthy do not feel that they are the same as “the little people” and those pesky laws, rules, taxes, etc., just don’t apply to them. But, to your point, the frequency of – and the minor cost of buying political protection for the huge return is disgusting.

        Randy

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  3. I think really, as to what blundersonwords writes here, that I agree with him.

    Another area that is decided by people with money who ‘own’ politicians is the appraisal schemes, and the methods of choosing those appraisers in each county (at least here in my state.)

    Basically as to what’s written, the one family who owns 100 acres ought to pay taxes on the amount the property is worth to the county. Maybe the single family won’t develop it in the fashion that another entity might develop it, but the value ought to be based upon something somewhere in the middle of what revenue could be earned if the 100 acres were more profitably developed. If that makes sense. Now due to zoning, that likely doesn’t happen often; a single family home on 100 acres next to a retail operation, or a multi-family complex. But sometimes it does.

    Where property taxes could really generate better, and I hate to say it but there it is, is churches. Some churches still perform the neighborhood services for which it was long ago decided they need not be taxed, but most don’t anymore. Also in most states, it’s not legal to restrict churches through zoning, meaning a church can be anywhere and still not pay property taxes.

    Long way of saying I agree with the thought process of this post! And there’s the verbosity for which I’m famous here.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi Ali. Great verbosity! 🙂 I agree with you and think that churches should be taxed based on membership. These “mega-churches” take up a great deal of space, affording the Kenneth Copelands and Jesse Duplantis types mansions that are also not taxed. I once looked up the requirements to be a “church”. It is extremely simplistic.

      Randy

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I don’t even know if membership ought to be the taxation determination, how about value of the property? Meaning its worth to the locality and state. Those mega churches have people sending them money from everywhere; they could fudge membership records, if such things are kept. Around here, the churches don’t really have members, though their core congregation are well known to the clergy and each other. Hmm. Then, I guess, we could look at income tax for them, as well…

        Like

        Reply

        1. Hi Ali. I have to admit to being conflicted. I have been to a number of small churches who were barely making ends meet but really doing their best to live right – feed the hungry, clothe the needy, visit the lonely, etc. But, then there are those who really do flaunt, loving gold far more than their commitment to their professed Lord. I’d hate to see the one punished for doing right just so the one doing wrong is held accountable. No easy answers.

          Randy

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Not too easy; but I think the ones like your first example could deduct their services and it would work out.
            I think the ones like Joel Osteen’s, which has a lot of property with plenty of space for people to be but won’t open for shelter during weather events ought have no deductions.
            Maybe all the churches would begin exemplifying the Person whose name is also the name of their religion!

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

  4. This is Ron writing, not Scottie. The aspect of taxes as we know it seems really convoluted. It has never worked out well for the poor, and now also the middle class. It makes me wonder ? The wealthy are all about keeping things the status quo. What ever it takes , unless something is for their advancement.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi Ron. I read your comment and I wanted to think on my answer a bit…. not sure it helped. 🙂
      As I think on this, i thought about what you said about wealthy maintaining the status quo, and how it just never really works out for the poor. I know this is a difficult position for many to take, but I really do believe in a balanced budget requirement. I guess I’m naïve enough to believe that the people who overspend would be wise enough to find a way to pay for their largess, but I do believe that this idea of doing whatever they damn well want has to come to some sort of a stop. Maybe if politicians were forced to hold to a budget, their revenue be open as well as expenses, maybe they would be held accountable. As it is right now, the wealthy purchase the politician who pays for the investment by lowering the wealthy taxes, opening doors for the wealthy, etc., meanwhile the middle-class and poor suffer the crumbs while being asked to pay larger and larger portions of the check. If nothing else, being unable to hide their corruption within this dark pit of ballooning debt would, perhaps, drive their actions into the light and maybe allow the voters to hold them accountable.

      Hugs.

      Randy

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. It worked pretty well when Pres. Clinton was in office (the balanced budget requirement.) While the so-called welfare reform all-in-all was not that great, it was very good in many ways: childcare and tuition were provided for (that was new then,) housing and transportation were considered and if necessary there were accommodations, and that’s just in regard to one of the safety net items. Children still got a SS death benefit when they lost a parent or both. That’s only 2 examples. Meanwhile, the budget was balanced, bills were paid, and Clinton left GW with a surplus: actual money, not just on paper. Clinton and Newt triangulated (yes, we liberals made fun of that, but stuff got done,) and cooperated for the greater good. I know many women and their now-grown children who got themselves educated and somewhere, and don’t need assistance, while Clinton’s program was in force.*

        OK, as to what Ron observes, that is true: things wind up going to the benefit of the already wealthy. This occurs under Republicans, and I’m not being partisan about it, check history. It is what they do. Bitch about programs that do things for people and increase productivity so more boats rise with the tide even as the government runs even or a surplus; then when they get a majority, give that money to someone wealthy who needs it and we do it all over again. Under GW, what I wrote above about welfare reform went away, leaving the family assistance cut with parts no longer paid for; also leaving them wide open for more cuts until we have what we’re looking at today. GW did that along with his tax cuts and refunds, even for taxes unpaid (it’s still on the internet,) to large corporations and their owners and some managers. The rest of us each got a check out of that deal, too, we will recall unless someone had unpaid taxes; GW credited the check against the unpaid balances.

        So, being an active citizen makes a difference. Scottie posted a toon/meme today (7/5) about participating in what’s now known as politics, but used to be considered a US citizen’s civic duty (the one about everything being political, and how someone who says they’re not political is complicit with what is.) If everyone participates, we can all have some of what we’d like in our country.

        *Much of Clinton’s admin was before the internet was populated as it is today. I was not online; I read the “Wichita Eagle”, “The Nation,” “US News and World Report” and “George” magazine to stay informed about my country. Much of what “The Nation” has printed is on their site, but they may need money before a person gets very far into the archives; could be worth it. So maybe we have to rely on our memories for these examples, but that’s why I chose these years: we are old enough to remember them and how they affected people.

        And to compare it to now.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment