Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I routinely appeal increases every time the County attempts to raise taxes. I really don't need to take REA 101, TYVM. I'm successful about 50% of the time, even when the numbers are in my favor. The County just goes and raises the taxes (the rate AND the value) in order to make more income. And yes, I know there is an appeal process from the the appeal I just lost. That process, however, is financially inequitable to property owners.



As the son of two teachers who grew up in a GM town I am more aware of these inequities than you probably are since I experienced them from birth. You, however, probably only read about them in the conservative literature you seem to inhabit.

And for your information, it isn't the libs responsible for this inequity. It is the companies that are willing to do so. And, before you say it's the unions forcing the companies to do so, I'd point out that unions would never have existed if companies hadn't treated their employees like shit and forced them to buy at the company store.



First of all, all citizens pay sales taxes. Not all citizens pay income taxes. There are those who make less than the minimum taxing amount, and there are those who "fail" to file. In some states, there is not state income tax. Approximately 2/3 of citizens are homeowners. Not all have sufficient coin to process an appeal.

Appealing an increased tax assessment is relatively free at the first level, but requires time and energy, and access to the Assessor's database. Even then you're at an extreme disadvantage because they make it hard for you to determine comparables.

Past the first appeal level, it becomes REALLY, REALLY expensive. First of all, you'll probably have to hire your own independent assessor as an expert. Although you can legally determine your the value on your own house, you cannot do so on comparables, but the Assessor can because his/her staff has that expertise. And they can testify virtually for free.

Second, if you have any kind of daytime job (I do, and am frequently out of town), you'll have to hire an attorney (preferably RE) to monitor the hearings and take the case to trial (including the Board and then the appeal to civil court). Most assessments only result in an increase of actual cost to the property holder of several hundred to a thousand dollars. By the time you've paid an attorney to prosecute the appeals involved, you've paid many times the assessment even if you prevail.

So, DFW5 and Atl, yes the process exists. But it's a losing proposition in every respect except one: if you can get a break on the appeal to the Assessor, then it's a small victory. Otherwise, it's more expensive than it's worth, and you lose every time.

At least you are consistent. This posting is very illustrative of how you approach life, not just providers.

You half-ass it & take the lowest cost option even if it is penny wise pound foolish then wonder why you lose (or less than satisfied) and place all blame on the "system" or factors you can't control....

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

At least you are consistent. This posting is very illustrative of how you approach life, not just providers.

You half-ass it & take the lowest cost option even if it is penny wise pound foolish then wonder why you lose (or less than satisfied) and place all blame on the "system" or factors you can't control....

If you have actually won an assessment appeal in civil court and it cost you less in payments to attorneys and experts, then you might have some credibility. Otherwise, you're shooting from the hip w/o anything to back up your position.

Just to give you a somewhat realistic example: the Assessor has no costs in defending an increase.

Plaintiff winds up paying filing fees of approx. $300; service of process fees of $600 (approx $50 x 5 board members and assessor); $1,000 to hire the expert (includes 1 report but no testifying time); $5,000 to retain the atty. (going to trial may cost another $10,000). W/o even going to trial, you shell out plus/minus $6,900. To fight a case that is going to raise your taxes maybe $500 - $1,000??? What math class did you take?

Of course, that doesn't reflect trial time or any appeal taken from the trial result.

[ThrillBill88]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

At least you are consistent. This posting is very illustrative of how you approach life, not just providers.

You half-ass it & take the lowest cost option even if it is penny wise pound foolish then wonder why you lose (or less than satisfied) and place all blame on the "system" or factors you can't control....

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

If you have actually won an assessment appeal in civil court and it cost you less in payments to attorneys and experts, then you might have some credibility. Otherwise, you're shooting from the hip w/o anything to back up your position.

Just to give you a somewhat realistic example: the Assessor has no costs in defending an increase.

Plaintiff winds up paying filing fees of approx. $300; service of process fees of $600 (approx $50 x 5 board members and assessor); $1,000 to hire the expert (includes 1 report but no testifying time); $5,000 to retain the atty. (going to trial may cost another $10,000). W/o even going to trial, you shell out plus/minus $6,900. To fight a case that is going to raise your taxes maybe $500 - $1,000??? What math class did you take?

Of course, that doesn't reflect trial time or any appeal taken from the trial result.

Charles,

I'll cede that how the assessment appeals process works varies greatly by location, so I won't discount your example. I've never needed to actually file a civil suit relative to this but have successfully lowered my assessment in two different states, both times for <$1000 with the payoff being higher in year one than my total investment. Basically there are attorney specialists that coordinate getting all the counter argument data (basically the same data a decent realtor can provide you on comps) then do the filing and appear on your behalf at all the hearings. As you point out, for someone with a day job showing up at the hearings is a pain in the ass so this is part of the service the attorney provides.

As you might imagine, I doubt this is the kind of cutting-edge law young associates dream of arguing when they enter law school, but for firms that specialize in this (really it is all process & showing up for appearances) I'm sure this is a profitable area.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

...fictitious Reagan tax cuts...

The Reagan tax cuts were not "fictitious" -- but neither were they of the nature assumed by most people.

After the smoke cleared from 5 years of tax policy changes ending in 1986, we saw that the tax burden on the middle class and upper middle class was substantially reduced, while that on the wealthy was increased.

Yes, you read that right: Taxes were reduced on the non-wealthy, while they were increased on the wealthy. That's the opposite of what most people think. I have found that hardly anyone seems to have any real understanding of the issue. Myths dies very slowly, if at all.

Of course you can argue that that's fair, since income inequality has risen over the last few decades, but you cannot argue that tax bracket changes caused the inequality. (Yet that's exactly what a couple of people argued in another recent thread.) As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Where Reagan failed was in allowing government growth and spending to continue unabated. Like every other modern president (except for Bill Clinton) he failed to halt this inexorable expansion.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The evidence is quite compelling that deficits are largely driven by spending.

Absolutely, and spending has been exploding out of control for most of the last decade. That's one of the main reasons that our economy in so much trouble. You can't cure the aftermath of the bust following a debt-fueled consumption boom with phony "stimulus packages" consisting mostly of political payoffs and entitlement expansions. That will make the economy worse, not better, as angst about the upcoming deficits increases. Big surges of social spending retard the economy; they don't stimulate it. There is not a free lunch; the money has to come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The so-called social democracies of Europe operate a federal government that is closer to 30% of GDP -- it takes that much to pay for all those health care and income transfer schemes. But they don't do it through an income tax scheme that 50% of the country doesn't pay. Even if you confiscated 100% of the income of the upper 50% of income earners you couldn't move receipts from 18% to 30%. To get tax receipts to that level you have to put in a steep VAT or similar sales tax that hits everybody. (Which obviously begs the question am I truly getting a free lunch if I have to pay for it?)

That is exactly right, and I think more and more people are beginning to realize it. Politicians apparently think people are stupid enough to believe that we can travel a long way on the road to becomong a European-style social democracy while exempting 98% of the population from the burden of paying for it.

Either we are going to have to cut spending back to approximately 2001 levels adjusted for inflation and population growth (fat chance!), enact a huge tax on the middle class (probably a VAT), or suffer a fiscal crisis that will make the financial crisis of 2008 look like a pleasant 4th of July picnic by comparison.

Those who make hiring decisions know that. In most cases, people don't just look a year or two down the road when making business decisions. They consider what they think is likely over the course of five or ten years. A look around the landscape suggests that a revenue-hungry government will need to find ways to suck at least a trillion dollars per year out of the private sector economy. No matter how you slice it, you can't do that without serious consequences.

No one should be surprised that a lot of capital seems to have decided to take an extended vacation. For some time, everyone has been able to see that we have a virtually jobless recovery. But now it seems that we may have a virtually recoveryless recovery.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Charles,

I'll cede that how the assessment appeals process works varies greatly by location, so I won't discount your example. I've never needed to actually file a civil suit relative to this but have successfully lowered my assessment in two different states, both times for <$1000 with the payoff being higher in year one than my total investment. Basically there are attorney specialists that coordinate getting all the counter argument data (basically the same data a decent realtor can provide you on comps) then do the filing and appear on your behalf at all the hearings. As you point out, for someone with a day job showing up at the hearings is a pain in the ass so this is part of the service the attorney provides.

As you might imagine, I doubt this is the kind of cutting-edge law young associates dream of arguing when they enter law school, but for firms that specialize in this (really it is all process & showing up for appearances) I'm sure this is a profitable area.

In Texas in the last two years, it is getting increasingly difficult to win appeals at the non-litigation level. The Comptroller's office has sent memos to local appraisal districts mandating (or all but mandating) certain appraisal levels that may not reflect market values but do reflect the State's cash needs. I filed two suits, one on a residential property and one on a commercial property, and started demanding documents and hired my appraisal expert. They suggested mediation. I ended up settling both suits for less than my expert said the value was. I think this was because they didn't want to turn the documents over. We still lost money because the tax we recovered over two years (they agreed to hold the appraisal the same for two years, not one) was substantially less than the cost of the appraiser, filing fees, etc. But they won't fuck with us again, either.

But for folks who can't file their own law suit, or who aren't willing to make an example out of the local appraisal district, the procedure for appeal in Texas is completely toothless, slanted entirely against the homeowner, and presumes that the appraisal district is negotiating in good faith. Sometimes they do, often they don't. In my county, they haven't for some time, which is why we decided to draw the line in the sand with them. But the legislature needs to change the law so that prevailing land owners can recover the real attorney's fees and expert witness fees. Then, and only then, will you see appraisal districts start treating people decently.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

In Texas in the last two years, it is getting increasingly difficult to win appeals at the non-litigation level. The Comptroller's office has sent memos to local appraisal districts mandating (or all but mandating) certain appraisal levels that may not reflect market values but do reflect the State's cash needs. I filed two suits, one on a residential property and one on a commercial property, and started demanding documents and hired my appraisal expert. They suggested mediation. I ended up settling both suits for less than my expert said the value was. I think this was because they didn't want to turn the documents over. We still lost money because the tax we recovered over two years (they agreed to hold the appraisal the same for two years, not one) was substantially less than the cost of the appraiser, filing fees, etc. But they won't fuck with us again, either.

But for folks who can't file their own law suit, or who aren't willing to make an example out of the local appraisal district, the procedure for appeal in Texas is completely toothless, slanted entirely against the homeowner, and presumes that the appraisal district is negotiating in good faith. Sometimes they do, often they don't. In my county, they haven't for some time, which is why we decided to draw the line in the sand with them. But the legislature needs to change the law so that prevailing land owners can recover the real attorney's fees and expert witness fees. Then, and only then, will you see appraisal districts start treating people decently.

+1 especially on costs and attorney & witness fees.

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But the legislature needs to change the law so that prevailing land owners can recover the real attorney's fees and expert witness fees. Then, and only then, will you see appraisal districts start treating people decently.

Better methinks to eliminate the antiquated property tax laws and let the homeowner be free of govt acting as if they have an interest in the major asset of most people.
Property bought and paid for, with money already taxed, is being lost every day by older folks whose income in retirement has not kept up with the craven govts thirst for dollars.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Better methinks to eliminate the antiquated property tax laws and let the homeowner be free of govt acting as if they have an interest in the major asset of most people.
Property bought and paid for, with money already taxed, is being lost every day by older folks whose income in retirement has not kept up with the craven govts thirst for dollars.

But JB, of the big 3 (income, sales/consumption, property), don't you think the fairest of them all is the property tax?

Afterall, of the things we spend tax dollars on that I agree with (or any good libertarian would agree with), namely infrastructure, public safety and the common defense best coorelates with the size (& in turn value) of my homestead?

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

...You, however, probably only read about them in the conservative literature you seem to inhabit. ...

You shouldn't speak before you know the facts, I speak to my uncle every other week who retired for GM not 3 years ago. You doth protest too much.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Either we are going to have to cut spending back to approximately 2001 levels adjusted for inflation and population growth (fat chance!), enact a huge tax on the middle class (probably a VAT), or suffer a fiscal crisis that will make the financial crisis of 2008 look like a pleasant 4th of July picnic by comparison.

Along that fundamental choice question:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

The Size of Government and the Choice This Fall

In polls, Americans overwhelmingly prefer small government and low taxes to the alternative. Yet they've been given big government, one program at a time.

By ARTHUR C. BROOKS AND PAUL RYAN

As we move into this election season, Americans are being asked to choose between candidates and political parties. But the true decision we will be making—now and in the years to come—is this: Do we still want our traditional American free enterprise system, or do we prefer a European-style social democracy? This is a choice between free markets and managed capitalism; between limited government and an ever-expanding state; between rewarding entrepreneurs and equalizing economic rewards.

We must decide. Or must we?

In response to what each of us has written in the preceding months, we have heard again and again that the choice we pose is too stark. New York Times columnist David Brooks (no relation) finds our approach too Manichaean, and the Schumpeter columnist in The Economist objected that, "You can have a big state with a well-functioning free market."

Data support the proposition that Americans like generous government programs and don't want to lose them. So while 70% of Americans told pollsters at the Pew Research Center in 2009 they agreed that "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time," large majorities favor keeping our social insurance programs intact. This leads conventional thinkers to claim that a welfare state is what we truly want, regardless of whether or not we mouth platitudes about "freedom" and "entrepreneurship."

But these claims miss the point. What we must choose is our aspiration, not whether we want to zero out the state. Nobody wants to privatize the Army or take away Grandma's Social Security check. Even Friedrich Hayek in his famous book, "The Road to Serfdom," reminded us that the state has legitimate—and critical—functions, from rectifying market failures to securing some minimum standard of living.

However, finding the right level of government for Americans is simply impossible unless we decide which ideal we prefer: a free enterprise society with a solid but limited safety net, or a cradle-to-grave, redistributive welfare state. Most Americans believe in assisting those temporarily down on their luck and those who cannot help themselves, as well as a public-private system of pensions for a secure retirement. But a clear majority believes that income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.

This is made abundantly clear in surveys such as the one conducted by the Ayers-McHenry polling firm in 2009, which asked a large group of Americans, "Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?" To this question, 21% favored the former, while 69% preferred the latter.

Unfortunately, many political leaders from both parties in recent years have purposely obscured the fundamental choice we must make by focusing on individual spending issues and programs while ignoring the big picture of America's free enterprise culture. In this way, redistribution and statism always win out over limited government and private markets.

Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry. More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it's only a few million tax dollars—and think of the kids, after all.

Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time.

This process has led to a visceral type of dissatisfaction with the current direction of our country. The president's job approval has fallen almost linearly since he took office (standing today at 45%, according to Gallup; 41%, according to Rasmussen) despite the fact that his policies are precisely what he promised when he handily won the 2008 election. Rasmussen finds that only 29% believe we are headed in the right direction as a nation and two-thirds say they are angry about current policies of the federal government. Majorities believe that "big government" poses the greatest threat to our country, according to Gallup.

Millions of Americans instinctively look to our leaders for a defense of our culture of free enterprise. Instead, we get more and more publicly funded gewgaws and shiny government novelties to distract us. For example, the administration stills touts the success of programs such as "Cash for Clunkers" in handing out borrowed money to citizens while propping up a favored industry. Yet Rasmussen found 54% of Americans opposed the program (only 35% favored it). Plenty of people may have availed themselves of that notorious boondoggle, but a large majority understand we were basically just asking our children (who will have to pay the $3 billion back) to buy us new cars—and that's not right.

More and more Americans are catching on to the scam. Every day, more see that the road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America's enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.

As this reality dawns, and the implications become clear to millions of Americans, we believe we can see the brightest future in decades. But we must choose it.

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books, 2010). Mr. Ryan is a Republican congressman from Wisconsin and the author of "A Roadmap for America's Future" (www.roadmap.republicans.budge t.house.gov)."

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

But JB, of the big 3 (income, sales/consumption, property), don't you think the fairest of them all is the property tax?

Afterall, of the things we spend tax dollars on that I agree with (or any good libertarian would agree with), namely infrastructure, public safety and the common defense best coorelates with the size (& in turn value) of my homestead?

You make points that sound good but, no I don't think it's the fairest of them all because it taxes assets gained with already taxed money and therefore, is at the very least double taxation. As I said before, it is a terrible hardship on older folks, particularly widows who have lost the main pension and have nothing besides the house.

Fair would be equal taxation of money whether earned or capital gains. This could be accomplished best by a national/state/local sales tax or flat tax or some variation. I personally prefer the flat tax with absolutely no deductions but the sales tax has merit also.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by John Bull

You make points that sound good but, no I don't think it's the fairest of them all because it taxes assets gained with already taxed money and therefore, is at the very least double taxation. As I said before, it is a terrible hardship on older folks, particularly widows who have lost the main pension and have nothing besides the house.

Fair would be equal taxation of money whether earned or capital gains. This could be accomplished best by a national/state/local sales tax or flat tax or some variation. I personally prefer the flat tax with absolutely no deductions but the sales tax has merit also.

the fairest tax of all is a head tax, not gonna happen

property tax is not a fair tax, as fair taxes are understood generally speaking, as they are not based on the ability to pay, they are not a function of cash flow except in a tangental manner, for example, raw land or a shopping center or office building where the property isn't cash flowing (the developer is mortgaged to the hilt and tenants are few), yet the tax keeps on coming, or even grandma, although her tax is capped and has an over 65 exclusion, it can still be quite a hardship. you can never truly own real estate as the tax is due annually, money or no money.

agricultural usage of real estate lessens the property tax, sometimes for the good and sometimes in not so fair ways. putting a few goats on an estate, or wildgame discounts rankle.

as far as a flat tax, we virtually have one for the working man who gets a W-2. the complexity in income tax law stems from business transactions and in calculations to arrive at business net taxable income. a flat tax cannot address any of those issues.

sales taxes have their own issues, such as conversion problems of re-taxing savings as they would be spent and the effect on the economy from behavorial changes of the postponement or reduction in reported sales as people escape taxation. you tax something , you will get less of it.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time.

"

That is a point I've made on here many times before relative to a number of topics:

Most of the stuff people propose aren't inherently bad. It is just when the check comes we balk at it.

Originally Posted by John Bull

You make points that sound good but, no I don't think it's the fairest of them all because it taxes assets gained with already taxed money and therefore, is at the very least double taxation. As I said before, it is a terrible hardship on older folks, particularly widows who have lost the main pension and have nothing besides the house.

Fair would be equal taxation of money whether earned or capital gains. This could be accomplished best by a national/state/local sales tax or flat tax or some variation. I personally prefer the flat tax with absolutely no deductions but the sales tax has merit also.

My point around the property tax was along the lines of if you go back 100+ years before all of the social programs the size of your estate correlated pretty well with the services you consumed.

As for tBoortz-he like "fair tax" the reason is will never happen is it too taxes older people on income they have already been taxed on...unless it includes all kinds of exclusions and deductions...in which case we start creeping back to where we are now

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Better methinks to eliminate the antiquated property tax laws and let the homeowner be free of govt acting as if they have an interest in the major asset of most people.
Property bought and paid for, with money already taxed, is being lost every day by older folks whose income in retirement has not kept up with the craven govts thirst for dollars.

I don't have a problem with that, but the government has to get the money to operate from somewhere. Frankly, I think that Texas ought to junk the sales taxes, property taxes, ad valorem taxes and severance taxes and just have a personal income tax.