The New Exchange » Farmers skeptical of Wolf’s tax plan

The Man · 3/30/2015 9:40 pm

Tarnation wrote:
What happens in year 21?

What new demands will be made in year 20 to shift the righful property taxes owed by the corporation onto the other landowners in the affected municipality?

Johnson and their ilk are literally banking on the region having a mobile popultation, a population with a short memory, and hope that some of us with long memories will die off.

If property taxes were eliminated, as they should be, there would be no reason to even think about that.

tennyson · 3/30/2015 10:29 pm

The Man wrote:
tennyson wrote:
The Man wrote:

So then, by eliminating property taxes, busineses wouldn't be gaining anything, as they already are not paying property taxes, their customers are paying for it in the cost of their products.
You're kidding, right ?

No, I'm not kidding at all. If a business builds the cost of their property taxes into the cost of their products, which they do, they aren't paying property taxes at all, their customers are paying their property taxes. Why would you think I'm kidding?

Because you obviously have no clue about businesses. ALL business costs are paid by the people buying their product or services. If they were not, they would go out of business ! Your argument could be turned around and say that most of us don't pay our property taxes because the money we get is really from our employers. That would be just about as ridiculous.

Some businesses DO get preferential treatment when they move into an area. I guess you can make a case either way on that one depending on what the new business brings in terms of extra employment, other revenues, etc. But most businesses currently DO give quite a boost via the property taxes. When and if they will not have to pay these taxes will they lower the cost of their product or services --- only if they are forced to by competition. Wonder why business favor the SB76 ?

The Man · 3/30/2015 10:38 pm

tennyson wrote:
The Man wrote:
tennyson wrote:
You're kidding, right ?

No, I'm not kidding at all. If a business builds the cost of their property taxes into the cost of their products, which they do, they aren't paying property taxes at all, their customers are paying their property taxes. Why would you think I'm kidding?
Because you obviously have no clue about businesses. ALL business costs are paid by the people buying their product or services. If they were not, they would go out of business ! Your argument could be turned around and say that most of us don't pay our property taxes because the money we get is really from our employers. That would be just about as ridiculous.

Some businesses DO get preferential treatment when they move into an area. I guess you can make a case either way on that one depending on what the new business brings in terms of extra employment, other revenues, etc. But most businesses currently DO give quite a boost via the property taxes. When and if they will not have to pay these taxes will they lower the cost of their product or services --- only if they are forced to by competition. Wonder why business favor the SB76 ?

Ok, but my employer won't pay me more money as I demand to make up for rising taxes. Companies can, and do raise the cost of their products to cover their expenses. Businesses vs. residential property owners is really an apples to oranges comparison. It doesn't take a business genius to know that. But, get rid of property taxes entirely, and no one, neither businesses or residential property owners, would need to worry about it.

Last edited by The Man (3/30/2015 10:53 pm)

BYOB · 3/31/2015 7:51 am

Tarnation wrote:
BYOB wrote:
The newspapers have been loaded with sheriff's sales, many of which are due to taxes.
Wrong.

Most of the Sheriff's sales have been from mortgage foreclosure/nonpayment.

A tiny minority have been "tax upset sales" for non-payment of property taxes.

From the entirety of the last 6 or so years?
Are you positive that none of those foreclosures are the results of property taxes? http://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-property-tax-lien-cause-foreclosure-1208.html

Question to everybody - What is the acceptable number of people that can/should lose their homes due to property taxes?

Goose · 3/31/2015 7:59 am

BYOB wrote:
Tarnation wrote:
BYOB wrote:
The newspapers have been loaded with sheriff's sales, many of which are due to taxes.
Wrong.

Most of the Sheriff's sales have been from mortgage foreclosure/nonpayment.

A tiny minority have been "tax upset sales" for non-payment of property taxes.

From the entirety of the last 6 or so years?
Are you positive that none of those foreclosures are the results of property taxes? http://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-property-tax-lien-cause-foreclosure-1208.html

Question to everybody - What is the acceptable number of people that can/should lose their homes due to property taxes?

Hey, I'd settle for knowing the actual number of people who lose their homes due to property taxes.

BYOB · 3/31/2015 8:02 am

Goose wrote:
BYOB wrote:
Tarnation wrote:

Wrong.

Most of the Sheriff's sales have been from mortgage foreclosure/nonpayment.

A tiny minority have been "tax upset sales" for non-payment of property taxes.

From the entirety of the last 6 or so years?
Are you positive that none of those foreclosures are the results of property taxes? http://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-property-tax-lien-cause-foreclosure-1208.html

Question to everybody - What is the acceptable number of people that can/should lose their homes due to property taxes?

Hey, I'd settle for knowing the actual number of people who lose their homes due to property taxes.

Me too, if I could find a concrete number. And once the actual number is known, the question is the same. (btw, the question was an honest one, not sarcastic.)

Goose · 3/31/2015 8:05 am

Well, I don't know.
Would we change the law because one person lost their house to taxes?

Is the tax burden unreasonable? Or, was not being able to pay taxes the final result of some unrelated financial calamity?

tennyson · 3/31/2015 8:24 am

BYOB wrote:
Goose wrote:
BYOB wrote:

From the entirety of the last 6 or so years?
Are you positive that none of those foreclosures are the results of property taxes? http://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-property-tax-lien-cause-foreclosure-1208.html

Question to everybody - What is the acceptable number of people that can/should lose their homes due to property taxes?

Hey, I'd settle for knowing the actual number of people who lose their homes due to property taxes.
Me too, if I could find a concrete number. And once the actual number is known, the question is the same. (btw, the question was an honest one, not sarcastic.)

Each year in approx. the Sept timeframe the county publishes a list of the homes up for tax upset sale. Perhaps a realtor/home investor can know the typical numbers. But, as Goose pointed out is the sale just because of the taxes or is it just one of the contributing factors ? That will be much harder to know. You currently CAN see the deliquent tax rolls online. Most of those are paid before the upset sale process.

http://yorkcountypa.gov/property-taxes/assessment-and-tax-claim-office/delinquent-tax-information-payment/information-regarding-tax-sales.html

For sure the delinquent tax roll $$$ have grown over the last few years. Is it because of the tax burden or just the fact the whole housing thing is still not anywhere near settled (ie- people buying more than they could afford which is linked to shady lending practices, etc.) Couple this with an economic climate where middle class jobs have show little or no monetary gains over the last x years relative to cost of living as well as all the other factors that were related to the last crash and its worldwide implications. One thing for sure, we economically still have a way to go till everyone is truly capable of participating in the recovery.

BYOB · 3/31/2015 8:28 am

Goose wrote:
Well, I don't know.
Would we change the law because one person lost their house to taxes?

Is the tax burden unreasonable? Or, was not being able to pay taxes the final result of some unrelated financial calamity?

In York, the taxes doubled in one year. I think that's unreasonable by most standards. Any other cost that doubles in one year seems unreasonable to most people. Heck, if a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk goes up by $0.20, people have a fit and travel all over God's green earth to find a better price. Yet, people can sit by and watch older retired people who've paid for their house already, lose it because they can't all of a sudden pay double the taxes.

Yes, I would consider changing a law if one person was very badly impacted by it. Many laws have been changed because of one severe incident, in fact we usually name the new law after that person, i.e. - Megan's Law, etc.. In court, you don't need to cite many precedents, you only need cite one. I don't really see that one person's treatment as any less than another's. If I care if it happens to my mom, I care if it happens to anyone else too. If something's not right, it's not right for 1 or 1 million, just because we usually always wait until the problem is severe enough to affect a large population before we address it, doesn't make it right up until that point. Just my opinions.

Goose · 3/31/2015 8:33 am

If one person loses their house, and everybody else is OK, maybe it's the person not the law. That was my point.

We have seen very little here that proves to me that there is an epidemic of people losing farms and houses in PA because the tax burden is not reasonable.
Just my opinion, but I want to know the scope of problems before leaping at solution that could very well make things worse.