Separate names with a comma.
Post in 'DIY and General non-hearth advice' started by charly, Oct 15, 2012.
I was going to say the exact same thing. And I live in the widwest...
Helpful Sponsor Ads!
Don't move to the suburbs of Grand Rapids...or Ann Arbor, Lansing, etc. You're making a killing in Lake Odessa.
EDIT: Unless you're saying your total lot is valued at $175k including the 13 acres. Then your taxes are probably spot on with our subarban rates. Sorry to confuse.
A big problem here is that we have 4 levels of government; state, county, town and village with overlapping services. They all have highway departments that maintain our roads. We need to have just the county and state do road maintenance. It's the same problem with our education system, too many administrators and not enough money for teachers. We have 4 school districts with separate administrators, they need to be combined to one large district like they do down south. I am not saying we need to gut spending, but we need to be smarter on how we spend the money.
Ohh man...go around suggesting "lets make our schools like the systems in the south" and see how much support you can get. ha. Education is very, very different south of the mason dixon line based on the folks I know that have lived in both...
We have no sewage, water or garbage pick up, which is fine with me. We have a fire department, rescue squad and a highway crew for the roads. Sheriffs and the State Police patrol the roads here. Good enough for me. I like it here for the self reliance. I don't need a bunch of services along with higher taxes.
We have sewer - a grinder pump system that is hooked into my breaker panel & that I pay rent on. No water. No trash pick up, but we DO have a transfer station, but we have to buy our trash bags from the town. We get our roads plowed. Staties & Sheriff's dept. Volunteer FD & EMTs. If we got MORE services, maybe I wouldn't consider my taxes too high. I have .253 acres, all hillside, that has 75' of frontage on a lake that is 8 ' deep after a BIG rainstorm. We have a lake association that is funded by the homeowners (those who care to join it) that pays a private contractor $5K per year to apply copper sulfate to keep the algae bloom down & another $15K every 3 -4 years to apply Aquathol to kill the Curly Leaf Pond Weed & Eurasian Milfoil. I have 3 more payments on the Mortgage & when that's paid off, I'll be able to afford the taxes, until I retire. Then I won't have a choice. I will HAVE to sell or I will lose it...
When I hear having to sell or lose it, that tells me that things are way out of hand with our government. Once you hit a certain age they should free you from taxes, like say 60. Taxes have almost equaled what a mortgage payment was 10 years ago! Another corrupt thing is the government offering reverse mortgages to seniors. Screws any family members out of a family owned home that some one worked for all their lives. Total BS!
As a younger member here, that's the last thing I want to see. More bills that my generation has to cover. After all, the money has to come from somewhere......
As far as the reverse mortgage deal, well, there's this thing called personal responsibility. Nobody is getting "screwed" out of a home. I sure don't want my kids waiting around for me to die so they can divide and conquer my estate. I want them to go out and work for their own home and create their own financial security, not be dependant on me. If they do that, then inheriting my estate will be of far more benefit to them and my future family. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, ....
Honestly, if you own your home and want to sell it back to the government rather than pass it to your kids, you have every right to do so. Might not make you popular with your family but well within your rights IMO.
I agree 100% with what your saying. I guess what gets me is the money these seniors will receive on a reverse mortgage won't even come close to what the house is worth, figuring on how much longer will they really live. The government again is making out like a fat rat. Plus you have to keep the house in the same condition as when you first agreed to the reverse mortgage. So if it needs a new roof before they die , they have to pay for a new roof, etc. Once they can't afford to maintain something , I'm betting the agreement is over and they've lost everything. Again this just goes to show the cost of living is way out of hand here.
I'm not sure its the govt making out. It's private companies offering reverse mortgages. (am I missing something?)
I think that the house is sold when the homeowner dies and that the bank gets what they paid out plus interest and if there is any money left it goes to the estate.
Oh,,,, thought it was the government offering the reverse mortgages. Misinformed.
If I was of a certain age, had bills, health problems, or just money worries- I'd definitely consider it. Whether they end up paying me less than the house is worth- you can't take it with you, and many will want to stay in the house they've built/lived in/loved. You get some cash, AND stay in the house? why not
Whoa, wait one minute! You really want the really wealthy to be free of taxes? I don't think you mean that.
The wealthiest 1% already control half the wealth in the US ... and "In 1962, the top 1% had 125 times the net worth of the median household. That shot up to 288 times by 2010 ...." Filthy Rich. The top 5% of US citizens own 59% of the wealth. As the rich are getting richer, the middle class is getting poorer.
And you want more of that? I doubt it. It's not really a govt issue, it's a people issue, that is, people voting for congress members, House and Senate, as well as at state and local levels, who continue to pass laws that make the wealthy wealthier. It is about wealth distribution, but not taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Just the exact opposite -- take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich.
Wealth and money controls the votes, controls the political advertising, and ultimately dumbfounds and confuses the voter to believe the crap about too much govt, too much regulation, etc. Because under the "too much govt and too much regulation" scenario, which is controlled by the rich, the rich are getting richer. The rich structure govt and regulation to accomplish this. "Too much govt and too many regulations" is ruse perpetrated by those who, once they get into office, will make sure govt does their bidding and regulations insure their accumulation of wealth.
A beginning solution is to get the money out of elections. But even the Supreme Court is in the pockets of the wealthy, as the Citizens United case handed the country over to the wealthy in their ability to control govt and insure this continuing wealth transfer to the rich.
I suspect you are losing this battle and don't even know it because you are falling for the ruse and blaming govt -- instead, blame the wealthy who control the show and are making sure you lose ... lose your land, your home, your job, your health care, and the list goes on. Because every time you lose, they win. Hip Hip Hooray!
Interesting thing they're doing on NPR- they get all these economists with various views together, find their common ground, and build a fictional political platform based on this.
First thing they all said- do away with mortgage deductions.
Maybe I should have stated that people earning under a certain income would no longer be taxed after 60, lets say anyone's total income that's under 80-100K. Just to let people survive. Let the rich pick up the tab! Yes the rich will always make the laws that protect themselves so they stay in power!
Mortgage deductions ... a tax subsidy to buy a home ... hmmm. For every action there is a reaction. If tax benefits one thing, then another thing loses. Plenty of room for differences of opinion here. One take is that the subsidy is an incentive or makes it cheaper to buy a home (can deduct interest), that increases demand for homes, and that bids up the price for the homes and bids up the interest rate through loan demand ... and just maybe the net economic impact on the homeowner is no change. And because taxpayer homeowners now have a deduction and pay less in taxes, income taxes need to be increased to cover the tax loss -- again maybe no real benefit to the homeowner ... just a ruse to make the homeowner think he has a benefit.
But who does benefits? As shown, probably not really the homeowner, who now pays more for the home and has a tax deduction but also an off-setting tax increase and higher interest rate, but just maybe it is the banks and the investors who provide the capital for loans who benefit and make more money, through higher interest rates on mortgages, and these investors own stocks that pay dividends at rates lower than income tax rates, and when they sell the stocks they get capital gains at taxes lower than income tax rates. So the investor-rich now make more money at low tax rates while the homeowner sees a tax increase to fund the extra income to the rich through lower tax rates on their dividend and capital gains incomes.
Their point was that the bigger the mortgage, the bigger the deduction. That benefits the rich at the expense of the poor/mortgageless.
Also- we have come to believe that this deduction is some constitutional right, rather than an entitlement. It's about $100B in lost revenue.
They had a lot of unpopular things to say.
No taxes on businesses- if you want to tax someone that's making a lot, then tax income- not the business.
A few others.
You should check out the NPR piece- they then have PR people try to sell it, write speeches to get these (assumedly, due to the wide variance in economist stances) sound economic policies into a palatable state.
Wow. Even more cynical than me!
As towns and states get less from the Federal government they make up the slack through taxing at the local level. States for the most part and towns for certain can't run a deficit like the Federal government. New schools used to get a ton of money at the federal level, now the states + towns eat it and here in NH it's been a traveling disaster to tax rates in certain towns. This grow-our-way-out-of-it way of thinking is bad news. The first 3 answers should always be NO, WE DON'T NEED A NEW SCHOOL/FIRE TRUCK/POLICE RIOT VEHICLE.
I have looked all over the NPR site and can't find this. Sounds interesting. I'd like to read more. Have a link you could share?
Other good research sites:
We fought down our reassessment a few years ago on our Old House. It was a good bit of work, but it paid off. It's nothing special and it's small (see sig)-taxes are a tick under 2K with STAR. The Cottage is higher (even though it's smaller). No central heat helps keep the assessement lower. A lot of folks I know won't pull a permit for non-visable work to keep from getting a hike in assessed value.
What you're speaking about is the exact reason we live in the Cottage instead of on a farm. We looked at a 20 acre "farm". Land hadn't been worked in AT LEAST 30 years, barn was coming down and the rest of the outbuildings were also in poor shape. House was a cobblestone but poorly maintained. 8K a year in taxes. As of right now, that place is abandoned, they couldn't sell it. I think one of the big farms bought most of the acreage-or they're renting it. We also looked at a 10 acre place. Several nice 20 or so year old pole barns, house about the same age but small with no basement or central heat. Abandoned (owner passed away) for about 3 years. Overgrown. Taxes are about 5-6K a year on that place. All the acreage here is owned by huge factory farms for sileage. Cows never see a blade of grass. They're the only ones that can afford it.
I'd support it. The main reason taxes are too high here is school taxes. I know plenty of people that are the product of the NYS school system and the NC school system. I have friends that teach here, and there. If my taxes were equal to theirs, and the schools were also, I'd say GO FOR IT. ASAP.