0
0

Banks pay no property tax on foreclosures?


 invite response                
2008 Jun 23, 6:56am   27,514 views  320 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (59)   💰tip   ignore  

On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:49 AM, A Guy wrote:

Long time reader...and, luckily, a renter here. I would like to bounce an idea off of you. I hear that foreclosed properties don't pay prop taxes. Is that true? If yes, then is there any way you can use your contacts/site to support the idea that municipalities impose regular prop taxes on empty houses. This would:

  • increase holding costs, forcing trustee to sell more quickly, driving home values to normalized pricing levels more quickly
  • help neighborhoods by 're-populating' them more quickly
  • reduce the unfair concept that only owner-occupied houses bear the tax burden
  • ultimately deter speculation
  • reduce likelihood of municipalities facing bankruptcy

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Phil

Thanks Phil,
I've heard that as well, but it's hard to believe, since it would be so unfair that banks pay no taxes while everyone else has to.

The idea of using property tax to keep things fair (and eliminating income tax and sales tax entirely) is an old one, but not yet tried anywhere. Henry George proposed it more than 100 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

I'll make a post out of this.

Patrick

#housing

« First        Comments 276 - 315 of 320       Last »     Search these comments

276   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 8:48am  

Your views are also easy to understand, and in real life I suspect strongly that you are also a reasonable person

I certainly don't bite ;)

Hmm, why is it that only poor people get labeled as irresponsible.

Because they are deprived of the opportunity to become responsible. Welfare, in its present form, is the biggest offender.

277   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 8:53am  

I do not pick on the poor. I do, however, pick on the idea that wealth disparity is evil.

Get real. Humanity has a hierarchy and it will always have a hierarchy. Forcing equality will only create undesirable artifacts.

278   Lost Cause   2008 Jun 29, 8:55am  

they are deprived of the opportunity to become responsible.

People like you think that the privilege that you enjoy is everybody's God-given right. Well, it isn't. There are barriers upon barriers erected long ago of which you are blissfully unaware. There are many, many poor people supporting your consumptive lifestyle. The markets that you love so much lead to monopoly. There is a grip on that monopoly that is not easily loosened. You and your babbling just distract from the real issue of restoring balance and justice.

279   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 9:14am  

a market must always exist in the medium of a legal system.

Yes, but not necessarily a justice system.

280   justme   2008 Jun 29, 9:32am  

>>Because they are deprived of the opportunity to become responsible. Welfare, in its present >>form, is the biggest offender.

Peter P,

What about rich kids? How do we incentivise them to become responsible? I suppose taking away daddy's money (aka. "generational welfare") is out of the question? Right, that would be wrong, it is known as the "death tax" in the moneyed circles.

281   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 9:34am  

you, like most libertarians, completely deflate the issue of a legal system as if all we need are some tablets with a few laws and people will just go ahead and follow them without dispute or malice.

Again, I am a Free Market Conservative. Most true libertarians consider me too authoritarian.

A justice system seeks social justice (whatever it means) whereas a legal system protects the integrity of Free Market.

282   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 9:38am  

What about rich kids? How do we incentivise them to become responsible? I suppose taking away daddy’s money (aka. “generational welfare”) is out of the question? Right, that would be wrong, it is known as the “death tax” in the moneyed circles.

Trust me. No form of inheritance taxation is more effective than the raw power of Free Market.

Trust me.

These rich kids will see their "undeserved" wealth disappear in no time with or without death tax.

283   justme   2008 Jun 29, 9:39am  

Peter P,

Yes! You have described the core of my meta-ethical belief, that individuals ought to delegate ethical decisions to a self-optimizing, self-organizing system, such as a minimally yet meaningfully regulated market.

The obvious problem here, as TOB and LC have expressed in many different ways, is that the so-called Free Market (TM) is neither self-optimizing nor self-organizing. The Free Market is defined by the legal and judicial constraints created by whoever is in power. The problem is that they tend to DEFINE the "Free Market" as the kind of market that operates to their advantage. There is nothing self-regulating about it all.

284   Lost Cause   2008 Jun 29, 9:40am  

Since when was it ever "..in order to establish a free market?" I think the function of the government is primarily to establish justice. Many people also recognize the importance of social justice, and regard it as a basic human responsibility to ensure that it is provided. True, left to its own devices, the world creates great inequality and suffering, but we have our lives to demonstrate what it is to be human.

285   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 9:43am  

The Free Market is defined by the legal and judicial constraints created by whoever is in power.

Then it is NOT a free market, isn't it. :roll:

(Yes, Free Market is really a unicorn.)

286   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 9:51am  

Social justice is just another unicorn.

The world is always unjust for the bottom half. I suggest everyone to understand the true nature of humanity.

but we have our lives to demonstrate what it is to be human.

Ha! I really don't know what you think of humanity. To say the least, we all deserve Hell.

287   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 9:56am  

Well, at least according to politicalcompass.org, I am not very libertarian.

I certainly will not try to appear intelligent. That word has no meaning to me. I prefer material results. I am still a total failure at this point.

288   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 10:10am  

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOU MARKET REFORMS?

Greatest aggregate utility. I share some root with utilitarian moral philosophy.

289   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 10:16am  

For all.

There is a big difference between the greatest number of people and the greatest aggregate utility for all people.

290   DennisN   2008 Jun 29, 10:33am  

Oh dear, it's tense in here. How about some humor to tie together the topics of food and the Heller decision?

I was fiddling around in my kitchen and discovered that rigatoni has a nominal 9mm bore, along with spiral grooves resembling rifling.

I therefore propose that in the future rigatoni be known as "pasta Scalia".

291   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 10:36am  

LOL!

292   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 10:37am  

Rigatoni is best with mushroom and meat ragu. :)

293   OO   2008 Jun 29, 11:02am  

Peter P,

nothing wrong with wealth disparity as long as you can feed the bottom strata and keep them sheltered. Provide for the basics, and you can be as rich as you want.

This was the case for the last 20 years or so, just that we are slipping away from that. My grandparents were filthy rich in China, and my great grandfather was once the largest land owner in a major coastal city. Guess what, the wealth distribution got so out of whack there that the bottom strata could no longer take it. If you don't give them a bit of socialism, they retaliate with communism, and my grandparents had to flee the country with bars of gold leaving most of their fortune behind. They were the lucky ones, some of their friends and family got executed with all their money confiscated.

People can turn into mob when luck is decisively stacked against them. A little bit of socialism is the best to keep the status quo which benefit most of us here, because we are doing infinitely better than most of the world's population. I don't want to take away that last bit of hope for those who are so unfortunate that they may want to rock the boat so hard to leave me destitute, through a violent revolution.

So I am ultimately selfish to part a little bit of my money with the disadvantaged, so that they will be kept satisfied where they are. They won't come after my asset while I keep on climbing my social ladder. You can't push people to corners leaving them with no options, leaving them some options means leaving myself with far more. Simple as that.

294   Richmond   2008 Jun 29, 11:03am  

Hi all.

Boy, feel the love in here tonight.

I don't mean to sound like some shmuck in a 10x10 cabin, but what do government and laws have to do with "justice"? Justice will always find a way regardless of the laws. It may take a while, but it will.

I'll use ragu as a base, but I always have to doctor it up quite a bit.

295   OO   2008 Jun 29, 11:04am  

oops, why am I still being moderated?

296   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:13am  

Approved!

297   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:18am  

TOB, you remind me of the giant chicken, always fighting with Peter for no reason. :lol:

298   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:21am  

nothing wrong with wealth disparity as long as you can feed the bottom strata and keep them sheltered. Provide for the basics, and you can be as rich as you want.

Or, we can help them feed themselves. I am not fundamentally against welfare so long as people are incentivized to eventually take responsibilities.

On the other hand, I think every person should be given the opportunity to become successful. While it is not possible to ensure that all receive the same equal amount of opportunities, it is just wrong to systematically keep the poor poor by means of welfare.

299   Richmond   2008 Jun 29, 11:44am  

"---- systematically keep the poor poor by by means of welfare"

There is alot to be said for that statement. You all know that I'm a working class stiff. When I was just starting out, I don't know how many years I worked full time for less than a welfare mom. If I needed more money, I studied, worked and made due. It eventually paid off.

When I was at Richmond High, I remember girls talking about their mothers wanting them to have babies to up the check amounts. That's so sad. Never did I hear them say that they wanted to go to college. I don't think that it ever occurred to them that they could. It was a generational lifestyle. That's not to say that we didn't have great success stories, we did, but a large section of the population accepted the life that they had been handed and never knew that things didn't have to be that way.

300   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:52am  

If I needed more money, I studied, worked and made due.

That is true beauty of the American Dream. Thank you.

but a large section of the population accepted the life that they had been handed and never knew that things didn’t have to be that way.

It is sad. As I have repeated many times, welfare is the best tool for sustaining poverty.

This country needs faith. I am not talking about religion. People should have faith in themselves. They must believe in themselves because they are the best providers for themselves.

301   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:54am  

I really admire Oprah Winfrey.

It is not wrong to be rich. It is not wrong to be poor either. It is wrong not to break free of your own limitations.

302   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:55am  

Peter may make logical sense to a point, but hes singing hopelessly out of tune.

You are lucky that I am not singing...

303   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 11:57am  

Monopolies never last. How many Dow stocks in 1900 are still Dow stocks today?

With today's speed of information flow, monopolies are especially shot-lived.

304   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 12:00pm  

Also, many monopolies could be maintained mostly because of high entrance barriers in their respective industries.

I wonder how much over-regulation has to do with these entrance-barriers. :roll:

305   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 12:01pm  

I love Microsoft. I admire Bill Gates a lot.

Disruptive technologies bust monopolies faster than any trust-busting bureaucracy.

306   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 12:04pm  

This is the truth: you are your own greatest limitation.

Not self-empowerment advice

307   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 12:05pm  

I have no more time for this.

Then leave. Obviously, I have more time than you.

308   Richmond   2008 Jun 29, 1:02pm  

TOB,

I agree that the whole gimme, gimme attitude in the U.S. is completely out of control. The world will start calling us France pretty soon. At some point the piper will have to be paid and at that point the system will collaps and force change. You guys are smarter than I, but I don't see how the powers that are profiting from a promoted lower class will ever give up that position without some sort of massive civil uprising. There is too much profit in keeping people stupid.

Now, if there was some way to convince people that they are screwing themselves by not getting even a basic education, a large part of the problem would take care of itself. My question is: how do we motivate people, instill enough self respect, to take the time to get enough education to realize that education is the way out; that education is power. Whether it's academics or the trades, people then have options. When you have options, you cannot be controlled. When you cannot be controlled, very positive things begin to happen as long as it doesn't swing into Anarchy.

Just a thought.
Not well thought out, just a thought.

309   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 1:28pm  

an important aspect to modern america is that any social service is rendered instantly insolvent by the armies of immigrants

The obvious solution is to privatize such social services. Any insolvent services should be shutdown.

RE: FISA bill

I feel safer if the government is allowed greater access to information.
If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But I could be wrong, please enlighten me.

RE: illegal immigration

We cannot tolerate massive law-breaking in this scale. We should:

1. deport illegal aliens
2. establish the guest worker program as proposed by President Bush
3. strictly exclude illegal aliens from any welfare program

310   Richmond   2008 Jun 29, 2:19pm  

The American, non Latino, minority population could put a stop to the illegal immigration issue in a New York minute. All they have to do is accuse the Federal government of racism on the grounds that the illegals are taking jobs and resources that should go to the minority populations comprised of U.S. citizens.

There are minority populations in this country that the Latino population wouldn't dare call racist. They have much more "minority power", if you will and that "power" can destroy any candidate with no more than an accusation.

The race game is the illegal immigrants' only defense. That blade has two edges.

311   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 3:19pm  

if you do #1 and #2 then there is no need #3.

inversly, if we just did #3, the rest would just happen.

Brilliant!

312   Peter P   2008 Jun 29, 3:22pm  

The race game is the illegal immigrants’ only defense.

Illegal aliens also that that they are an important labor force. A guest worker program can neutralize that claim.

313   Lost Cause   2008 Jun 29, 3:56pm  

Here we go again. Picking on the poorest of the poor, and people who are so powerless that they do not even have a right to vote. No wonder it is a favorite of the republicans year after year.

Do you really think you are going to affect change by picking on the poor and the powerless? You really need to rattle the rich and powerful. That is the only way to make a difference.

314   Lost Cause   2008 Jun 29, 4:27pm  

The world is not fair, so agrees Peter P. Is this why we have created laws and institutions for justice? Do we not expect to balance the cruelty of the world with the milk of human kindness? Why do we maintain this civilization? Because we fancy architecture?

Just look at the unfairness of nature. A guy can walk away, yet a pregnant girl is stuck. Do we allow for a remedy? Certainly.

I don’t know if a cybernetic wheel of fortune is a worthy repository of trust. Perhaps that is what created us, after all. But this is not humanity. There is no morality in that. People who are amoral are sociopathic. Peter P – you are a walking contradiction. Almost everything you say contains this or that republican talking point. You have no original thoughts. Do you ever listen to yourself?

315   Philistine   2008 Jun 30, 12:05am  

RE: FISA bill

I feel safer if the government is allowed greater access to information.
If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But I could be wrong, please enlighten me.

This chestnut seems to be the fashionable substitute for critical thought. Pure trollery. You can't be serious you "feel safer"? Is the government your mommy and daddy? How repugnant.

Why can't law enforcement do their job without creating a repressive police state? If I'm not doing anything wrong, why do they need to know? Why do we put curtains in our windows, and why do we wear clothes? Who watches these cameras and in what way are they obligated to respond, if any? Or is this just for jollies?

« First        Comments 276 - 315 of 320       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions