The very idea that once a mortgage is paid there should be no more property taxes is not only absurd, but illogical. Of course, you always own your home, mortgage or not, just as you own your car, loan or not.
Consider these rough averages. The mortgage payment is the major monthly cost for a homeowner. Once there is no mortgage payment, the property taxes is much more affordable.
In the average example here, the monthly expense goes from $2,575 to $275 thus staying in one’s home becomes more, certainly not less affordable.
Combined monthly cost estimate (national average):
- Mortgage P&I: ~$2,300
- Property taxes: ~$275
- Total: ~$2,575/month
Property taxes provide a more stable revenue source to run schools and a community than sales or income taxes. They have been used since around 1844.
It should also be clear that exempting one group from taxation shifts a greater burden to others.
Of course, it should have been obvious that exempting tips, some overtime pay and Social Security benefits from income taxes did the same thing and also accelerated Social Security insolvency.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Al Lindquist
Agree with you James–the socialists want to tax billionaires–freeze prices on selected food items (I believe 22)–and pretty much eliminate taxes on the middle class–Brother Quinn will no doubt tell us those folks buying that program are not gullible dupes– only the MAGA folks fall for the bait and switch–just like those who bought the NYC socialist mayor’s plan, but now learn they might pay 10% more in property taxes. .
LikeLike
If you are referring to the Sanders idea, he is nuts. I don’t even support raising the FICA cap without comparable increased benefit accrual.
Be careful with that socialists label. Favoring strong social programs to benefit society is NOT socialism.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist:
oh really– isn’t Bernie a self described socialist? what about AOC—what about Talib?
oh, now I get it– they are democratic Socialists thus they won’t use the gun to implement their program like the Castro brothers and others that follow–all they want to do is grow government which means more central power and less to the people–starts off sounding really nice doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Better look up definition of socialism. Trumps federal investment in private companies in the tens of billions of dollars is closer to the definition of socialism than anything even Sanders has proposed.
Socialism is the governments ownership and control over the means of production. Technically the TVA is socialism.
Mention Medicare for all and people scream socialism. That’s not socialism either, it’s universal insurance.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist:
yes, your textbook definition is accurate and Trump’s Intel foray smacks of socialism but what to make of Crazy Bernie and the rest of the loons who now identify as socialists –what do they believe? Soviet style grocery stores anyone?
“universal insurance” well that’s a new one–guess who will make all the rules and eventually set prices–of course with a $37 trillion deficit you will tell us it will be a cost saver just like all the other debt-ridden programs our kids and grandkids need to deal with.
LikeLike
First, do you have a better idea to assure universal coverage and a fair distribution of costs?
Second, M4A replaces all other programs such as Medicaid, CHIPS and tax subsidies for employer plans and, of course, the ACA. M4A is not a net added cost.
It would be funded (fully funded) by a combination of payroll taxes, employer taxes (who on average already pay 8% of payroll for health benefits), income based premiums and out of pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays.
Yes, it would set fee levels and no it would not be of the ridiculous version proposed by Sanders. Benefits could be added provided they were fully funded by taxes or premiums.
Unless everyone is in the same risk pool, sharing costs, nothing else will work and never has.
LikeLike
Yes, I have a better idea, and have shared it here more than once. The differences from M4A are:
Everyone is in the same risk pool when it comes to catastrophic expenses,
There is an individual mandate of stop loss coverage, which includes an individual premium, which cannot be waived (anyone can pay the premium), which would be treated as an individual, per capita tax, administered by the IRS, where interest and penalties for non-payment would apply, and that accumulated debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, only in death, levy and attachment would apply, the same as any other tax debt. The individual mandate applies to all lawfully present who are here indefinitely (not asylum claims, not visiting individuals on vacation, not illegal aliens). That stop loss coverage would have an attachment point of $25,000 per person per year. Expenses incurred in excess of $25,000 would be subject to Medicare Allowable restrictions, or Medicaid Allowable if the individual was enrolled in Medicaid.
There is an individual mandate of basic coverage for expenses up to $25,000 a year per person. The individual mandate applies to all lawfully present who are here indefinitely (see above). Regular cost sharing (deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, etc.) as permitted under Health Reform today would be possible. The premium would be age based in five year brackets from age 16 through age 64, with a separate rate for children/teenagers under age 16. Coverage could be provided by Medicare, Medicaid, individual insurance, employer-sponsored plans, the public exchange, or the individual could post a $25,000 bond or pledge a Health Savings Account balance of $25,000. Everyone would be defaulted into a HSA-capable coverage option each annual enrollment, where the individual could opt out with a showing of other basic coverage. Where the other basic coverage is interrupted during a calendar year, the HSA-capable coverage option would automatically spring up.
Because 50+% of all medical expenses for individuals ages 18 – 64 are incurred by less than 5% of all individuals ages 18 – 64, the split of coverage this way would ensure BOTH the stop loss AND the basic coverage are affordable.
For those who are present in America but who are not here indefinitely, coverage is limited per EMTALA.
Bottom line, any reform of health reform that does not include individual responsibility will, ultimately, FAIL. Any reform of health reform will FAIL if it does not assign responsibility to society (all citizens and those here legally, indefinitely) for those expenses which are not budgetable by individuals and the smallest of employers (including sole proprietors).
Every other proposal I have seen simply is a different variant designed to satisfy what Americans really want: “They want the best health care coverage YOUR money will buy!”
LikeLike
This is accurate that exempting a dollar from tax means another dollar must be taxed more in the most simplest sense. It is also true that Democrats can create exemptions on par with Republicans if not better. Their preferred method however is to provide benefits to certain groups.
I’m not a reader of Social media but I’ll say it’s probably balanced between those who would like tax cuts and those who would take any offered freebie.
LikeLike