this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
666 points (89.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

29102 readers
3710 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (5 children)

California disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

Property tax is assessed when there's a sale, and otherwise changes very slowly. It's a controversial measure.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago

Surely this man would be in favor of a greater and graduated state income tax then, right?

...right?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I don't know his situation but I think primary residence up to certain value shouldn't be taxed at all. There's a huge difference between an old man living alone in a house he had built for his family 60 years ago and an "investor" who owns entire neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, where I live a property tax on as far as I remember 4th and all above residential properties has been proposed and people who oppose it the most are pensioners who live in the only property they own. Right wing media can just outright lie to people telling them the tax is going to be on every property and people go on vote against their own interests.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

How big is his house? How much is it worth now?

How much did he pay for the land it sits on? Or did he inherit that?

Who does he think maintains road networks and all the other infrastructure he relies on?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

allowed to take surplus tax,

He's likely towing the Libertarian party line. We'd be fine without these taxes and all that government waste.

When you start asking about public services, they start, slowly, carefully re-inventing taxes while downplaying corporate greed while putting themselves in a decision-making role where they get to decide what is right for everyone else.

I'm sure he can hardly afford to live in his ancestral home. That SS he paid into all those years doesn't hit the same as a paycheck and might stop altogether soon. If you don't squirrel away your own retirement, you have to make concessions.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While these are fair questions, I think it's a reasonable stance to take that you shouldn't literally get taxed out of your home if you come into poverty, which unfortunately can include Social Security recipients. I know we all need to pay taxes and contribute to society to the extent that we're reasonably able to, but I'm not so sure this is the best way to make it happen. For property beyond your primary residence, sure, but for your only home, I don't super like it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If your home is now worth millions, you're now rich and can afford the taxes. If you have no income, sell the house. If you want to live in it, do a reverse mortgage. If you want to pass on your house to your heirs, creating generational wealth while not paying your share of taxes now, fuck you, pay up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Assuming the house is worth millions is a faulty premise. Housing prices have exploded in the last 5-10 years, and that can mean that a home bought decades ago is worth many times its original value, causing a huge increase in property taxes, but still being in line with other regular homes. People who bought decades ago might have had the home appreciate to 10x the value of initial purchase, just to end up still in line with median home prices. Selling their house won't fix the tax rate, it'll just add some leftover mortgage value after they pay taxes on the profit from selling their massively value-inflated home. So now, instead of just paying property taxes, they pay comparable property taxes and the remainder of a new mortgage.

I can agree on inheritance taxes, but I don't think it's super fair to heavily tax the owner a primary home of a reasonable value when they're not selling the home, giving it away, allocating it through inheritance, or otherwise transferring it. Maybe if it's a mansion, but a simple, normal home, maybe on some farm land? I don't see a problem with a family having the security of knowing that come hell or high water, they have a home they won't lose to anything but a natural disaster. We all need to contribute to society as it contributes to us, but I don't think that should come at the expense of security in basic essentials like housing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like I said, do a reverse mortgage. You shouldn't get to lock in minuscule tax rates forever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And I just don't agree with that. I don't think we should have to pay property taxes at all on a reasonably priced primary residence, as set by local and national standards. Housing should be considered more of a right. We all need to contribute to taxes, yes, no dispute there, but I don't see this as a fair way to do so. Now, if it's an extra property or a particularly lavish home, yeah, tax the piss out of them. But taxing someone into homelessness should never happen because one of the state's core goals at least should be seeing that everyone's basic needs are met, and that includes housing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree it's reasonable for housing to be a right, but I disagree that home ownership should be a right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Okay, but how do you intend to accomplish that without costing the government more tax money? The most cost effective first step seems to me to be to just not tax a reasonable primary residence. Providing housing the inhabitants don't own costs someone money in building and maintaining that property, and since we're agreeing that housing should be a right, the only way I can see to guarantee that would be through government funding. And we probably should do that for some people, at least those most in need, but what's the sense in forcing people in poverty out of their home of decades just because they can't afford the property taxes, especially when that means pushing them into housing the government is actively paying for? Why is it that we can agree that everyone deserves housing, but we can't agree that they should be able to own that housing? There are other ways to raise that tax money, and the obvious choice is to increase taxes on those with a gross excess, not those who have managed to achieve stability after decades of work.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Property taxes go towards education. More right-wing bullshit attacking schools.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Interesting. In Texas once you hit 65 they freeze your property taxes and no longer increase it. My parents are only paying $1,800/year on a $250K house. Meanwhile I’m paying $14,000/yr on a $500K house.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Property tax rates are based on how much your city/county needs to operate. Property values change, but so do mill rates. Most cities aren't allowed to take surplus tax, so they tweak the mill rate when property values fluctuate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Here in the United States, this issue and this sign are advocating for what? This man is where? At his county commissioner meeting? This sign implies we want the federal government in our local tax policy? I mean really? GTFO with this garbage. Stay the F out of my busniess, if I don't like property tax, that comes with my local vote, and has nothing to do with the federal government. I could bet someone paid this tool to stand with this sign because someone who doesn't understand decentralized local government power wants to make a point about something that has nothing to do with social security.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago

Is this guy paid by some rich guys wanting to abolish property taxes?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›