Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(10-15-2022, 07:54 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I think he enjoys being a contortionist.

I hope you don't mind me asking you, but, what is this original question he's talking about?

Per this property tax issue: Land should only be taxed when:

You purchase it
You pay a mortgage/loan on which it is the collateral
You sell it

Just like any other asset/investment, You don't pay tax on your 401k or 403b until it is sold.

Property tax on property owned free and clear is one of the biggest ripoffs ever. And neither party would advocate its revocation, because its too valuable as a source of government funding.

(10-16-2022, 06:25 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Per this property tax issue:  Land should only be taxed when:

You purchase it
You pay a mortgage/loan on which it is the collateral
You sell it

Just like any other asset/investment,  You don't pay tax on your 401k or 403b until it is sold.

Property tax on property owned free and clear is one of the biggest ripoffs ever.  And neither party would advocate its revocation, because its too valuable as a source of government funding.

Just like neither party would advocate for removing the income tax.

Let me explain what property tax can do. Property tax sends a very necessary and very important signal to people.  I know of some very dilapidated homes that are right by expressway exists, surrounded by nice new subdivisions and shopping centers, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, everything. But these homes are falling over, paint peeling, and the yards are full of junk like broken down boats, etc, all facing the road.  Clearly bringing down surrounding property values.  But there's no HOA.  The grass is trimmed so the county has nothing to say.  The one thing that would tell these people it's time to gather their things and go somewhere where fewer people have to see their piles of junk is to let their property tax reflect the actual value of their property now that they have nice amenities around it.  But we don't even do that! Our homestead exemption will make sure their property tax only goes up 3% per year.  So they will eventually get the signal they need, but it will take way too long.

(10-16-2022, 06:25 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Per this property tax issue:  Land should only be taxed when:

You purchase it
You pay a mortgage/loan on which it is the collateral
You sell it

Just like any other asset/investment,  You don't pay tax on your 401k or 403b until it is sold.

Property tax on property owned free and clear is one of the biggest ripoffs ever.  And neither party would advocate its revocation, because its too valuable as a source of government funding.

"Fun" fact. The state of NC brings in between $5-8M in "tampon tax" revenue per year. Something that is 100% a necessary is considered a "luxury" and is taxed as such. 

It's insane the things we're taxed on. 

My husband and I own 10 acres of land outright. We owe nothing on it, we don't even live on it, yet we are taxed. Hell, half of it isn't even useable other than for trees to grow and its ecosystem.

(10-16-2022, 08:14 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2022, 06:25 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Per this property tax issue:  Land should only be taxed when:

You purchase it
You pay a mortgage/loan on which it is the collateral
You sell it

Just like any other asset/investment,  You don't pay tax on your 401k or 403b until it is sold.

Property tax on property owned free and clear is one of the biggest ripoffs ever.  And neither party would advocate its revocation, because its too valuable as a source of government funding.

"Fun" fact. The state of NC brings in between $5-8M in "tampon tax" revenue per year. Something that is 100% a necessary is considered a "luxury" and is taxed as such. 

It's insane the things we're taxed on. 

My husband and I own 10 acres of land outright. We owe nothing on it, we don't even live on it, yet we are taxed. Hell, half of it isn't even useable other than for trees to grow and its ecosystem.

NC also has sales tax on food. Most states dont put sales tax on food except hot food. NC is way out of line on their sales tax, I agree with you.
But your property? If the land isnt usable, your taxes are probably fairly low? Is it good for hunting or ATV or something like that? What do you use it for? Sell the trees to loggers every few years? I know people in Florida who do that.

(10-16-2022, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2022, 06:25 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Per this property tax issue:  Land should only be taxed when:

You purchase it
You pay a mortgage/loan on which it is the collateral
You sell it

Just like any other asset/investment,  You don't pay tax on your 401k or 403b until it is sold.

Property tax on property owned free and clear is one of the biggest ripoffs ever.  And neither party would advocate its revocation, because its too valuable as a source of government funding.

Just like neither party would advocate for removing the income tax.

Let me explain what property tax can do. Property tax sends a very necessary and very important signal to people.  I know of some very dilapidated homes that are right by expressway exists, surrounded by nice new subdivisions and shopping centers, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, everything. But these homes are falling over, paint peeling, and the yards are full of junk like broken down boats, etc, all facing the road.  Clearly bringing down surrounding property values.  But there's no HOA.  The grass is trimmed so the county has nothing to say.  The one thing that would tell these people it's time to gather their things and go somewhere where fewer people have to see their piles of junk is to let their property tax reflect the actual value of their property now that they have nice amenities around it.  But we don't even do that! Our homestead exemption will make sure their property tax only goes up 3% per year.  So they will eventually get the signal they need, but it will take way too long.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.  Many of these dilapidated homes are not owner-occupied, so an increase in property tax has no direct effect on the residents.  At most, they might see an increase in rent.  Zoning regulations can be utilized to clean up the sites, but the municipality involved needs the political will to enforce such action.
Beyond that, property tax has two components, the value of the land and the value of the improvements.  A dilapidated structure that has little value, therefore contributes little to the taxable assessed value.

(10-16-2022, 10:10 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2022, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Just like neither party would advocate for removing the income tax.

Let me explain what property tax can do. Property tax sends a very necessary and very important signal to people.  I know of some very dilapidated homes that are right by expressway exists, surrounded by nice new subdivisions and shopping centers, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, everything. But these homes are falling over, paint peeling, and the yards are full of junk like broken down boats, etc, all facing the road.  Clearly bringing down surrounding property values.  But there's no HOA.  The grass is trimmed so the county has nothing to say.  The one thing that would tell these people it's time to gather their things and go somewhere where fewer people have to see their piles of junk is to let their property tax reflect the actual value of their property now that they have nice amenities around it.  But we don't even do that! Our homestead exemption will make sure their property tax only goes up 3% per year.  So they will eventually get the signal they need, but it will take way too long.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.  Many of these dilapidated homes are not owner-occupied, so an increase in property tax has no direct effect on the residents.  At most, they might see an increase in rent.  Zoning regulations can be utilized to clean up the sites, but the municipality involved needs the political will to enforce such action.
Beyond that, property tax has two components, the value of the land and the value of the improvements.  A dilapidated structure that has little value, therefore contributes little to the taxable assessed value.

If they're not owner occupied, then the property tax can increase by 10% per year. That should light a fire under the owner a bit faster.
It doesn't matter if a landlord or an occupant is making the decision to sell to someone who will make better use of the land, as long as it is done.
You're correct that zoning regulations could help, and correct that as a practical matter the political will is not there to make fines high enough to help.  So that's a non sequitur. 
And you're also correct that property tax has two components.  The land value component is the thing we need here to signal the owner to use the property properly or otherwise sell it to someone who will.  The improvements component is small in this case, as you said.  Small enough to not be relevant to the discussion.  We are discussing the land value component.
So what am I wrong about again?