fc2112 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

I think he means exempting the full value of homesteads from property tax.

But to his previous point, no. Texas politicians don't have the balls for that.

---

Florida has way more vacation homes and investment properties than Texas does as a percentage of property.

---

More vacation but more rentals? Not sure that's true.

EDIT - Florida has a higher % of home ownership - 68.4% vs 63.9%

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TXHOWN

---

I wasn't talking about how many state's residents owned their own home, which is what that rate represents. I was talking about how many of the homes in the state were homesteads/primary residences vs how many were vacation homes, vrbos, 2nd homes for the winter, etc. that were not covered by a homestead exemption. That percentage is almost certainly much higher in Florida than Texas due to the east coast snowbirds/retirees and the large vacation rental market in Florida.

Quote:

---

Not completely true. We already exempt unprepared food and agricultural products from sales tax.

---

The point was not if there are some products with sales tax exemptions.

The point is that we all pay the same sales taxes...

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

AgGrad99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

---

The median amount takes into account vacant unimproved property in the middle of west texas. It's not inclusive of improved homestead properties...much less any house in an incorporated city...where the majority of residents live. It's just an outlier number, that has little to do with the conversation.

But even with that number, not a lot of retired 75 year olds, on a fixed income have fixed expenses every month over $400. Most have cars paid off, a house paid off, etc. It's still one of the biggest expenses most have.

Pretending as if thousands of dollars in property taxes aren't a giant burden is silly. And even if you think it's not a burden, the morality of charging someone annually for the right to live in their house is asinine to me. Always has been.

---

Agreed. But I would rather deal with the morality of charging some 30% net income taxes. It is insanity and immune from a ballot box correction.

Any property tax fix will undoubtedly hit those paying high net income taxes the most to make up the shortfall and further insulate the majority people from paying any meaningful taxes while continuing to add new and evermore entitlement spending.

As demonstrated here almost weekly, property tax cuts have broad public support.

AgGrad99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

---

The median amount takes into account vacant unimproved property in the middle of west texas. It's not inclusive of improved homestead properties...much less any house in an incorporated city...where the majority of residents live. It's just an outlier number, that has little to do with the conversation.

But even with that number, not a lot of retired 75 year olds, on a fixed income have fixed expenses every month over $400. Most have cars paid off, a house paid off, etc. It's still one of the biggest expenses most have.

Pretending as if thousands of dollars in property taxes aren't a giant burden is silly. And even if you think it's not a burden, the morality of charging someone annually for the right to live in their house is asinine to me. Always has been.

---

I agree with you on this in principle.

My only argument in this never-ending debate is that the money has to come from somewhere. There is no magic bullet here.

Most people in this debate stamp and scream about their property tax bill while wholly ignoring the other half of the equation and what that money funds.

Show me a formula that replaces the money already in the system that isn't dependent on property taxes. Never seen one that is realistic.

Starting assumptions:

• Existing spending is not getting cut in amounts that matter so no help there.
• Replacing property tax wholesale with consumption tax won't work due to reasons already shared - too variable and it happens at point of sale.
• State income tax has a huge hurdle to clear to even get voted on as an outlet for lowering property taxes and then all you are doing is giving the state carte blanche to now raise your taxes through 3 channels vs 2 channels.
• Neither urban Democrats who run Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso nor rural Republicans who run everything else are going to do ANYTHING to endanger public schools. Besides, the Chair of the Property Tax committee is a Democrat because the Republicans in power are largely RINO's.

How are we going to get around all of these bullets?

We agree there. I dont want an income tax. I dont want to trade one bad, for another.

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

Yes finally, someone with some Onions to do the right thing!!!!!

Burdizzo said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I love the model Florida is pursuing. You'll be hard pressed to exempt all property...so having Homestead being exempt, and others taxed is a very good tangible step.

I'd love to see something similar in Texas. Maybe a menial sales tax bump to compensate. At least with a sales tax, all use are paying for it equitably.

There is nothing I hate more, than a retired person continually paying for the privilege to live in their home, which has been paid off for years.

---

Absolutely. Businesses and investment properties would continue to be taxed, absorbing the difference.

---

So if businesses pay more taxes, that does not impact your salary?

---

To answer that, you'll need to calculate how much more business property and non homestead/primary residences would need to increase in order to help absorb the burden.

My guess is it might vary. C-STAT last time I looked had only about 1/3 of their houses not rented. Presuming that number remains accurate, absorption by the 2/3 of houses and apartments not declared homesteads would be relatively minimal. Other communities might not be so blessed.

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not completely true. We already exempt unprepared food and agricultural products from sales tax.

---

The point was not if there are some products with sales tax exemptions.

The point is that we all pay the same sales taxes...

---

When some products are exempt and others are not exempt, we do not allow pay the same sales taxes.

Also, you skipped the part about unreport cash transactions. I feel like there is an unrealistic expectation that everyone will be honest about reporting cash transactions.

Valid point. But it all depends on the mechanics and rules of how these laws would get written though.

GenericAggie said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

I think he means exempting the full value of homesteads from property tax.

But to his previous point, no. Texas politicians don't have the balls for that.

---

Ok, so eliminate taxes on homesteads.

Bad idea.

---

When is it ever bad to eliminate taxes?

---

Taxes are never eliminated, just shifted from one person to another. Eliminate taxes on all homesteads and taxes on commercial property goes up. Renters pay more. Businesses pay more.

It's very enticing, and it will pass, but it's not a good thing.

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

I didnt skip it...but you're getting off into tangents that aren't germane.

If your argument is, 'there are things I dont like about sales tax, so that can't be an alternative to a worse tax'...I dont know what to say. There are issues with the tax code, for every single tax in existence.

I'd rather improve, even if not perfect. I'd rather remove this burden, and own my home, with a slightly higher state/local sales tax (which already exists, and everyone pays).

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

Dang, that is basically the same size as our home. That is not a mansion. Sorry you are getting screwed. I guess property tax rates vary greatly per county.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I didnt skip it...but you're getting off into tangents that aren't germane.

If your argument is, 'there are things I dont like about sales tax, so that can't be an alternative to a worse tax'...I dont know what to say. There are issues with the tax code, for every single tax in existence.

I'd rather improve, even if not perfect. I'd rather remove this burden, and own my home, with a slightly higher state/local sales tax (which already exists, and everyone pays).

---

Au contraire, I think the government's ability to enforce and collect a proposed tax is completely fair game. Otherwise more drug dealers would be hauled in for tax evasion, and drug use in this country would plummet.

We live on the coast and pay accordingly.

Salt water is expensive in more ways than one.

Tom Fox said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

---

For people who were or are not high earners before or after retirement, the property tax is a killer, particularly if there is a boom where they live and property values go way up. I would be fine if we just increased the homestead exemption on property taxes to 100% at age 65, increased the sales tax a bit to make up the difference, and otherwise left taxes as they are now.

Burdizzo said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I didnt skip it...but you're getting off into tangents that aren't germane.

If your argument is, 'there are things I dont like about sales tax, so that can't be an alternative to a worse tax'...I dont know what to say. There are issues with the tax code, for every single tax in existence.

I'd rather improve, even if not perfect. I'd rather remove this burden, and own my home, with a slightly higher state/local sales tax (which already exists, and everyone pays).

---

Au contraire, I think the government's ability to enforce and collect a proposed tax is completely fair game. Otherwise more drug dealers would be hauled in for tax evasion, and drug use in this country would plummet.

---

txags92 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

---

For people who were or are not high earners before or after retirement, the property tax is a killer, particularly if there is a boom where they live and property values go way up. I would be fine if we just increased the homestead exemption on property taxes to 100% at age 65, increased the sales tax a bit to make up the difference, and otherwise left taxes as they are now.

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65. Property values don't matter. School taxes are automatic. City and county taxes can be frozen by the governing bodies or by petition. If they aren't frozen in your city or county, that's your fault.

Quote:

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65.

---

Only 50% of it is.

txags92 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

---

For people who were or are not high earners before or after retirement, the property tax is a killer, particularly if there is a boom where they live and property values go way up. I would be fine if we just increased the homestead exemption on property taxes to 100% at age 65, increased the sales tax a bit to make up the difference, and otherwise left taxes as they are now.

---

Sounds reasonable to me. But the devil is in the details. That sales tax rate increase could be a huge tax increase for some people. Anything 2% or less should not move the needle and I would like retirees to be immune from property taxes as much as possible

I shouldn't have to pay 50% of my property taxes to local schools. I'm retired and do not have children in the system.

At least cut that for me and quit stealing my money.

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65.

---

Only 50% of it is.

---

What are you talking about? Whatever your tax bill was the year you turned 65 is the amount it will stay until you sell or die. It can actually go down based on increased HS exemptions etc.

Martin Cash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

---

For people who were or are not high earners before or after retirement, the property tax is a killer, particularly if there is a boom where they live and property values go way up. I would be fine if we just increased the homestead exemption on property taxes to 100% at age 65, increased the sales tax a bit to make up the difference, and otherwise left taxes as they are now.

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65. Property values don't matter. School taxes are automatic. City and county taxes can be frozen by the governing bodies or by petition. If they aren't frozen in your city or county, that's your fault.

---

I am not talking about frozen. If you saved and scrimped all your life to pay for a nice house and have it paid off by the time you turn 60, and the area you are in goes through a boom just before you hit 65, you are stuck paying high taxes on that property for the rest of your life, regardless of whether your income went up commensurate with the boom in real estate prices. I would prefer to see property taxes go away entirely on homestead exempted homes when you turn 65. That way nobody is having to sell their home because they can't pay the taxes.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Real estate taxes are frozen at 65. If their real estate taxes are their largest expense, they are not making much income and are probably already largely living off of entitlements.

---

If you're 70, with a paid off house, what would be a bigger expense? Property taxes are likely the largest expense for most people in that situation with a fixed/retirement income. I know a few people this is a giant burden for.

That 'entitlement' jab is disassociated from reality.

---

Ok... lets re-write this.
If you're 70, with a paid off house, what would be a bigger expense? Property taxes Police, fire, local roads, parks, flood control, and schools they do not have any kids enrolled in are likely the largest expense for most people in that situation with a fixed/retirement income.

Ummm... I'm 44 single and in that's pretty much my situation as well other than not retired. Why do they get a break?

What if grandma and grandpa never bought a property? Their rent isn't fixed. Property taxes are a pass thru on rentals so does their landlord not get to "price grandma out of her rental?"


Plus... Fixed income/retirement income grandma... Does their retirement income get taxed if we go income route? What about their new TV? Grandma is going to pay local taxes one way or another. Unless you just want to give grandma free fire and police service.

Don't want to charge grandma for schools? Fine. Don't charge me either.

txags92 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

---

For people who were or are not high earners before or after retirement, the property tax is a killer, particularly if there is a boom where they live and property values go way up. I would be fine if we just increased the homestead exemption on property taxes to 100% at age 65, increased the sales tax a bit to make up the difference, and otherwise left taxes as they are now.

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65. Property values don't matter. School taxes are automatic. City and county taxes can be frozen by the governing bodies or by petition. If they aren't frozen in your city or county, that's your fault.

---

I am not talking about frozen. If you saved and scrimped all your life to pay for a nice house and have it paid off by the time you turn 60, and the area you are in goes through a boom just before you hit 65, you are stuck paying high taxes on that property for the rest of your life, regardless of whether your income went up commensurate with the boom in real estate prices. I would prefer to see property taxes go away entirely on homestead exempted homes when you turn 65. That way nobody is having to sell their home because they can't pay the taxes.

---

If you're that hard up, you can totally quit paying property taxes on your homestead at 65. You can defer them. They will have to be paid when you die or sell, but you don't have to pay a penny in taxes as long as you occupy the homestead.

txags92 said:

---

If you saved and scrimped all your life to pay for a nice house and have it paid off by the time you turn 60, and the area you are in goes through a boom just before you hit 65, you are stuck paying high taxes on that property for the rest of your life,

---

Martin Cash said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65.

---

Only 50% of it is.

---

What are you talking about? Whatever your tax bill was the year you turned 65 is the amount it will stay until you sell or die. It can actually go down based on increased HS exemptions etc.

---

Valuations aren't frozen though and continue to rise annually.

techno-ag said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65.

---

Only 50% of it is.

---

What are you talking about? Whatever your tax bill was the year you turned 65 is the amount it will stay until you sell or die. It can actually go down based on increased HS exemptions etc.

---

Valuations aren't frozen though and continue to rise annually.

---

So?

YouBet said:

---

I shouldn't have to pay 50% of my property taxes to local schools. I'm retired and do not have children in the system.

At least cut that for me and quit stealing my money.

---

My kids have never dipped a toe in public school but I would still rather pay ISD taxes than state income taxes.

Martin Cash said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65.

---

Only 50% of it is.

---

What are you talking about? Whatever your tax bill was the year you turned 65 is the amount it will stay until you sell or die. It can actually go down based on increased HS exemptions etc.

---

Valuations aren't frozen though and continue to rise annually.

---

So?

---

So seniors continue to pay more each year. It's frozen only to an extent.

Martin Cash said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65.

---

Only 50% of it is.

---

What are you talking about? Whatever your tax bill was the year you turned 65 is the amount it will stay until you sell or die. It can actually go down based on increased HS exemptions etc.

---

Valuations aren't frozen though and continue to rise annually.

---

So?

---

It only applies to the school portion of your property tax bill which is typically about 50% of your total tax bill. And if you make improvements then your school portion resets to higher basis.

So, there are caveats.

Martin Cash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

txags92 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, I think we need to remember this board is an outlier on the wealth spectrum. I wish my prop tax bill was only $4,100.

I think we can't forget insurances and improvements though. When I look at our housing costs, I always bundle property taxes + insurances + improvements. Those 3 together are 20% of our total annual spend. Now, we spend way more on food and likely vacations than most people.

If our food and vacation bill was more in line with the average, I'm betting our annual Home spend would be somewhere around 30% of our total spend.

---

Yeah but that is still a choice. I make a top 1% income but my property tax bill is $10K annually.

That bundle bolded above for me including mortgage, maid service, landscaping & pool service is 8.5% of our total annual spend including investments. But we Travel and eat out a lot.

You must live in a massive home or in a very high cost affluent area.

Honestly the only thing that I care about is reducing my income tax rate. That has to get sorted out. I'm going to have to work an additional 5 years at least to offset the theft of progressive income taxation.

---

It absolutely is a choice, and we do live in a larger home although not massive (3,200 sq ft) in an affluent area (why our housing costs are high) and I recognize that. We don't have to live where we do the likely inability to sell our house for it's supposed market price notwithstanding.

Thus, while I think paying property tax on property I already own outright is a crime, the alternatives could be worse to your point.

This entire debate is a lesser of evils proposition and depends on your particular situation. Like I said earlier, it's a tradeoff discussion and there is no magic bullet regardless of what people want to happen.

---

I honestly would prefer an income tax to property tax, specifically because there are ways to not show a lot of income when you are retired and therefore pay very little tax. But if you have a nice house and property that you paid for long ago, you are still going to owe a huge property tax bill regardless of what your income is after you retire.

---

I prefer the opposite. I do not see anyway you cannot get boned in retirement if you have several million invested for retirement. So the income tax screwing will just continue into to retirement and the very top earners will continue footing almost half of the tax burden. At least with property taxes, everyone is paying something substantial and therefore have skin in the game.

---

For people who were or are not high earners before or after retirement, the property tax is a killer, particularly if there is a boom where they live and property values go way up. I would be fine if we just increased the homestead exemption on property taxes to 100% at age 65, increased the sales tax a bit to make up the difference, and otherwise left taxes as they are now.

---

Property taxes are frozen at 65. Property values don't matter. School taxes are automatic. City and county taxes can be frozen by the governing bodies or by petition. If they aren't frozen in your city or county, that's your fault.

---

I am not talking about frozen. If you saved and scrimped all your life to pay for a nice house and have it paid off by the time you turn 60, and the area you are in goes through a boom just before you hit 65, you are stuck paying high taxes on that property for the rest of your life, regardless of whether your income went up commensurate with the boom in real estate prices. I would prefer to see property taxes go away entirely on homestead exempted homes when you turn 65. That way nobody is having to sell their home because they can't pay the taxes.

---

If you're that hard up, you can totally quit paying property taxes on your homestead at 65. You can defer them. They will have to be paid when you die or sell, but you don't have to pay a penny in taxes as long as you occupy the homestead.

---

It isn't about being hard up, it is about making sure people can afford to stay in their house until they die and leave it behind for their kids (full of stuff they don't want or need) when they are gone. The sample size here is skewed heavily towards upper class incomes, but the reality is that there are a lot of people who didn't buy all the nice toys in life and didn't sock away millions in a 401k so that they could buy a home for their kids to live in and put them through college. When they retire, they are going to have fixed or reduced income to live on potentially for 2+ decades. If they have a big bump in property taxes right before they retire, all their planning may be screwed and they have to decide whether to sell their house or leave nothing behind for their kids when they die because we are going to steal the land and property people spent their whole lives paying for instead of letting their kids inherit it because they had to let the taxes pile up unpaid? If the kids can't afford to pay the taxes when they die then the county is going to take the property and sell it to some crony that will buy it for the value of the taxes and then sell it for a nice profit.