That 2 billion would be better spent taking care of Military Veterans..... Too many of them are homeless and are in dire need of healthcare........
Influx of migrant children costs the public school system an estimated $2 billion per year: report
Customs and Border Protection encountered 145,474 minors in FY 2023
An estimated three million illegal immigrants poured into the country in fiscal year 2023,
according to a report by the Heritage Foundation on the consequences of migrants on American schools. And, while there is not currently a reliable count of the total enrollment of children in public schools who were brought to the U.S. illegally, indications are that the influx is costing American taxpayers billions of dollars.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/influx-mig...ear-report#
The main source of funding for schools (except in CA) is property taxes and everyone who isn't homeless is paying property taxes, illegal or not.
(03-06-2024, 10:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The main source of funding for schools (except in CA) is property taxes and everyone who isn't homeless is paying property taxes, illegal or not.
And I say Homeless Military Veterans ALWAYS come before these damn border jumping illegals. They served our country and protected our God Given Rights...... Including yours to be an uninformed idiot on the issue...........
(03-06-2024, 11:04 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 10:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The main source of funding for schools (except in CA) is property taxes and everyone who isn't homeless is paying property taxes, illegal or not.
And I say Homeless Military Veterans ALWAYS come before these damn border jumping illegals. They served our country and protected our God Given Rights...... Including yours to be an uninformed idiot on the issue...........
We spend more, per capital, in homeless veterans than we do on children of illegal immigrants.
The homeless veterans are already put first.
(03-06-2024, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 11:04 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]And I say Homeless Military Veterans ALWAYS come before these damn border jumping illegals. They served our country and protected our God Given Rights...... Including yours to be an uninformed idiot on the issue...........
We spend more, per capital, in homeless veterans than we do on children of illegal immigrants.
The homeless veterans are already put first.
$75 billion towards Ukraine from Biden..
Versus $3 Billion from Biden to homeless vets.
Your statement is bull [BLEEP]..
(03-06-2024, 11:35 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 11:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We spend more, per capital, in homeless veterans than we do on children of illegal immigrants.
The homeless veterans are already put first.
$75 billion towards Ukraine from Biden..
Versus $3 Billion from Biden to homeless vets.
Your statement is bull [BLEEP]..
Now divide by the number of people in each group.
You remember math class, right?
(03-06-2024, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 11:35 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]$75 billion towards Ukraine from Biden..
Versus $3 Billion from Biden to homeless vets.
Your statement is bull [BLEEP]..
Now divide by the number of people in each group.
You remember math class, right?
One group of people need priority over the other.
(03-06-2024, 10:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The main source of funding for schools (except in CA) is property taxes and everyone who isn't homeless is paying property taxes, illegal or not.
Simply not being homeless does not equate to paying property tax. It is paid by property owners, regardless of tenancy and this is true for all property, be it residential, commercial, industrial, farmland, undeveloped, etc.
(03-06-2024, 01:14 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 10:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The main source of funding for schools (except in CA) is property taxes and everyone who isn't homeless is paying property taxes, illegal or not.
Simply not being homeless does not equate to paying property tax. It is paid by property owners, regardless of tenancy and this is true for all property, be it residential, commercial, industrial, farmland, undeveloped, etc.
Right, and the property owner passes it on to the tenant.
As all property owners are burdened by property tax, there is no possibility that owners will compete on this basis, and the price paid by all renters simply goes up.
In effect the renters pay the property tax.
If it were not so, if for some reason the landlord couldn't fund the property tax using money from the tenant, the landlord would walk away from the property and let the tax assessor have it.
Subscribe to my channel for more simple lessons in economics.
(03-06-2024, 12:50 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Now divide by the number of people in each group.
You remember math class, right?
One group of people need priority over the other.
And they have it! By about two orders of magnitude they have it!
Looks like I need to add basic math to my YouTube channel also...
(03-06-2024, 01:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 01:14 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Simply not being homeless does not equate to paying property tax. It is paid by property owners, regardless of tenancy and this is true for all property, be it residential, commercial, industrial, farmland, undeveloped, etc.
Right, and the property owner passes it on to the tenant.
As all property owners are burdened by property tax, there is no possibility that owners will compete on this basis, and the price paid by all renters simply goes up.
In effect the renters pay the property tax.
If it were not so, if for some reason the landlord couldn't fund the property tax using money from the tenant, the landlord would walk away from the property and let the tax assessor have it.
Subscribe to my channel for more simple lessons in economics.
(03-06-2024, 12:50 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]One group of people need priority over the other.
And they have it! By about two orders of magnitude they have it!
Looks like I need to add basic math to my YouTube channel also...
Yeah, go ahead and add it. Something else from you that nobody gives a [BLEEP] about.
(03-06-2024, 01:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 01:14 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Simply not being homeless does not equate to paying property tax. It is paid by property owners, regardless of tenancy and this is true for all property, be it residential, commercial, industrial, farmland, undeveloped, etc.
Right, and the property owner passes it on to the tenant.
As all property owners are burdened by property tax, there is no possibility that owners will compete on this basis, and the price paid by all renters simply goes up.
In effect the renters pay the property tax.
If it were not so, if for some reason the landlord couldn't fund the property tax using money from the tenant, the landlord would walk away from the property and let the tax assessor have it.
Subscribe to my channel for more simple lessons in economics.
LOL. You clearly know nothing about rental property, but even so, you might have been able to draft a more informed response if you had looked up the definition of deficiency judgement before posting.
BTW, absent rare and very unusual circumstances, lenders will almost always pay delinquent taxes, rather than allowing a mortgaged property to go to a tax sale.
(03-06-2024, 02:48 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 01:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right, and the property owner passes it on to the tenant.
As all property owners are burdened by property tax, there is no possibility that owners will compete on this basis, and the price paid by all renters simply goes up.
In effect the renters pay the property tax.
If it were not so, if for some reason the landlord couldn't fund the property tax using money from the tenant, the landlord would walk away from the property and let the tax assessor have it.
Subscribe to my channel for more simple lessons in economics.
LOL. You clearly know nothing about rental property, but even so, you might have been able to draft a more informed response if you had looked up the definition of deficiency judgement before posting.
BTW, absent rare and very unusual circumstances, lenders will almost always pay delinquent taxes, rather than allowing a mortgaged property to go to a tax sale.
Why do you assume a bank is involved?
Fine, add the bank into the model.
Are they paying those delinquent taxes out of the goodness of their hearts?
If the landlord has a mortgage, maybe he isn't a landlord? Maybe the bank is the landlord.
Regardless, neither is paying the property tax out of their funds.
They are paying it out of the funds from the tenant.
The tenant pays the property tax along with every other predictable expense that is known at the time of the rental agreement, plus the landlords profit, plus the banker's interest. The tenant pays all or else the property would not be built and offered for rent.
(03-06-2024, 03:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 02:48 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. You clearly know nothing about rental property, but even so, you might have been able to draft a more informed response if you had looked up the definition of deficiency judgement before posting.
BTW, absent rare and very unusual circumstances, lenders will almost always pay delinquent taxes, rather than allowing a mortgaged property to go to a tax sale.
Why do you assume a bank is involved?
Fine, add the bank into the model.
Are they paying those delinquent taxes out of the goodness of their hearts?
If the landlord has a mortgage, maybe he isn't a landlord? Maybe the bank is the landlord.
Regardless, neither is paying the property tax out of their funds.
They are paying it out of the funds from the tenant.
The tenant pays the property tax along with every other predictable expense that is known at the time of the rental agreement, plus the landlords profit, plus the banker's interest. The tenant pays all or else the property would not be built and offered for rent.
A landlord might not be a landlord if he has a mortgage? LOL. Do you know ANYTHING about mortgages and lending? This is one of your dumbest posts ever, and that's not an easy club to break into.
What do you think happens when a property is vacant and there are no incoming tenant funds? How do the taxes get paid?
PS A tax assessor will NEVER take possession of property for delinquent taxes. That's the job of the tax COLLECTOR. I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that their respective job titles made that obvious.
(03-08-2024, 09:13 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 03:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you assume a bank is involved?
Fine, add the bank into the model.
Are they paying those delinquent taxes out of the goodness of their hearts?
If the landlord has a mortgage, maybe he isn't a landlord? Maybe the bank is the landlord.
Regardless, neither is paying the property tax out of their funds.
They are paying it out of the funds from the tenant.
The tenant pays the property tax along with every other predictable expense that is known at the time of the rental agreement, plus the landlords profit, plus the banker's interest. The tenant pays all or else the property would not be built and offered for rent.
A landlord might not be a landlord if he has a mortgage? LOL. Do you know ANYTHING about mortgages and lending? This is one of your dumbest posts ever, and that's not an easy club to break into.
What do you think happens when a property is vacant and there are no incoming tenant funds? How do the taxes get paid?
PS A tax assessor will NEVER take possession of property for delinquent taxes. That's the job of the tax COLLECTOR. I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that their respective job titles made that obvious.
Study some economics.
You are using "landlord" in a very specific sense, the entity that a resident tenant pays rent to.
In economics, "landlord" or "rentier" is anyone who expects payment from their investments, anyone who extracts wealth without working.
Instead of trying to challenge me on vocabulary and definitions, explain why these differences in vocab are important to my point.
My point is, "the tenant pays everything, including property tax." The only thing you said that actually speaks to this point is "what happens when the property is vacant?"
Fair question. Simple answer. When the property is vacant there is no tenant. So that has nothing to do with my point.
When there is a tenant, the tenant pays everything, including property tax.
(03-08-2024, 11:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-08-2024, 09:13 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]A landlord might not be a landlord if he has a mortgage? LOL. Do you know ANYTHING about mortgages and lending? This is one of your dumbest posts ever, and that's not an easy club to break into.
What do you think happens when a property is vacant and there are no incoming tenant funds? How do the taxes get paid?
PS A tax assessor will NEVER take possession of property for delinquent taxes. That's the job of the tax COLLECTOR. I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that their respective job titles made that obvious.
Study some economics.
You are using "landlord" in a very specific sense, the entity that a resident tenant pays rent to.
In economics, "landlord" or "rentier" is anyone who expects payment from their investments, anyone who extracts wealth without working.
Instead of trying to challenge me on vocabulary and definitions, explain why these differences in vocab are important to my point.
My point is, "the tenant pays everything, including property tax." The only thing you said that actually speaks to this point is "what happens when the property is vacant?"
Fair question. Simple answer. When the property is vacant there is no tenant. So that has nothing to do with my point.
When there is a tenant, the tenant pays everything, including property tax.
The conversation is specifically about property and the tax thereon, not economics in general, and it was you who introduced the descriptive "landlord". Try to keep up. If you can't, just send up a flare and I'll circle back around and sketch it out for you with a Crayola.
By your definition, someone who doesn't own real property, but is making money from stock dividends or a bank cd is a landlord, which is an absurd interpretation. You're just digging yourself in deeper.
It was a two-part question, now answer the second part, which goes directly to your point. When the property is vacant, who pays the taxes? I'll give you a hint, the bill still goes to the same address.
(03-09-2024, 08:52 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-08-2024, 11:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Study some economics.
You are using "landlord" in a very specific sense, the entity that a resident tenant pays rent to.
In economics, "landlord" or "rentier" is anyone who expects payment from their investments, anyone who extracts wealth without working.
Instead of trying to challenge me on vocabulary and definitions, explain why these differences in vocab are important to my point.
My point is, "the tenant pays everything, including property tax." The only thing you said that actually speaks to this point is "what happens when the property is vacant?"
Fair question. Simple answer. When the property is vacant there is no tenant. So that has nothing to do with my point.
When there is a tenant, the tenant pays everything, including property tax.
The conversation is specifically about property and the tax thereon, not economics in general, and it was you who introduced the descriptive "landlord". Try to keep up. If you can't, just send up a flare and I'll circle back around and sketch it out for you with a Crayola.
By your definition, someone who doesn't own real property, but is making money from stock dividends or a bank cd is a landlord, which is an absurd interpretation. You're just digging yourself in deeper.
It was a two-part question, now answer the second part, which goes directly to your point. When the property is vacant, who pays the taxes? I'll give you a hint, the bill still goes to the same address.
When there is a tenant, the tenant pays everything. The end.
(03-09-2024, 09:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2024, 08:52 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]The conversation is specifically about property and the tax thereon, not economics in general, and it was you who introduced the descriptive "landlord". Try to keep up. If you can't, just send up a flare and I'll circle back around and sketch it out for you with a Crayola.
By your definition, someone who doesn't own real property, but is making money from stock dividends or a bank cd is a landlord, which is an absurd interpretation. You're just digging yourself in deeper.
It was a two-part question, now answer the second part, which goes directly to your point. When the property is vacant, who pays the taxes? I'll give you a hint, the bill still goes to the same address.
When there is a tenant, the tenant pays everything. The end.
LOL. Who knew it was that simple? I'm going to tell the Assessor to stop sending me those tax bills! I'll let you know how that works out.
Just catching up on this one. Mike clearly has never owned rental property, nor has he ever been a landlord. Then again, why would someone making 500k a year need to own rental properties?
You can't just charge what you want. The market drives rent prices, not a landlord. Being a landlord is hard.
Property taxes
Insurance
Mortgage
VACANCY
Property management (6-10%)
Routine maintenance
Capital expenditures (roof, plumbing, appliances, siding, painting)
Cash flow margins are slim, especially with interest rates Mike and the surburban women's presidents policies caused.
(03-06-2024, 01:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2024, 01:14 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Simply not being homeless does not equate to paying property tax. It is paid by property owners, regardless of tenancy and this is true for all property, be it residential, commercial, industrial, farmland, undeveloped, etc.
Right, and the property owner passes it on to the tenant.
As all property owners are burdened by property tax, there is no possibility that owners will compete on this basis, and the price paid by all renters simply goes up.
In effect the renters pay the property tax.
If it were not so, if for some reason the landlord couldn't fund the property tax using money from the tenant, the landlord would walk away from the property and let the tax assessor have it.
Subscribe to my channel for more simple lessons in economics.
I don’t have a problem with your logic on who is actually paying the property tax as long as you also extend that logic to corporate taxes, which are passed on the the end consumer via price increases resulting in the consumer, not the corporation, paying the tax. You should be a strong advocate for zero corporate level taxes.
(03-09-2024, 09:25 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2024, 09:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When there is a tenant, the tenant pays everything. The end.
LOL. Who knew it was that simple? I'm going to tell the Assessor to stop sending me those tax bills! I'll let you know how that works out.
You still haven't refuted my point. It's like you're showing up to oral arguments at the supreme Court and trying to correct the other guy's spelling instead of explaining why you you should win the case.