Oliver Twist-Moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

“I’m not maga!”



-then proceeds with unleashing a litany of maga rhetoric about taxes, public schools, and govt services. 😆


Hon, you ARE a maga.



So gross.

No, mismanaging the budget is gross. I’m tired of paying more and getting less

MAGA trash.

With the money we shell out they should pick it up. But no, MOCO has trash all over the streets and is an unkempt mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

“I’m not maga!”



-then proceeds with unleashing a litany of maga rhetoric about taxes, public schools, and govt services. 😆


Hon, you ARE a maga.



So gross.

DP and you are way off base here. There is nothing MAGA in that pp comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

“I’m not maga!”



-then proceeds with unleashing a litany of maga rhetoric about taxes, public schools, and govt services. 😆


Hon, you ARE a maga.



So gross.

No, mismanaging the budget is gross. I’m tired of paying more and getting less

MAGA trash.

These are the progressives/socialists who respnd this way and tbh,have destroyed the deomcratic party.

Challenge government and want to pay less for the same or get more, and youre a racist maga

The negative net migration in this state is one of the largest in the country. It will only get worse as we are hit from moore and enrich with increases while budgets are mismanaged

The impact to this state and county will be felt for decades as the more wealthy leave and people dependent on services replace them.

I’m not a Democrat, except by registration. I’m a Socialist and I’m outspoken and proud of it. I’m registered as a Dem because it’s the only way I can have a voice in our silly two-party system. But Gen Z is entirely like me. And Socialism is the future. You will see that in time, and you’ll switch too. Or you can continue to insist on being a Democrat, in which case you’ll be an opposition party one day like the republicans are now.


Your choice.

ha, you didnt have to announce you are a socialist, we all know. lack of critical thought, accepting government abuse, and using maga as a derogatory word...par for the course. you are the reason maga is in charge. too many are confusing insane policies with the democrats.

this will never going to be a socialist country. we've all taken college courses about socialism and thought it was cool to be taken care of. but we grew up and realized most socialists are just lazy and dont want to work. once NYC and seattle go bankrupt, the experiment will be overr

btw, socialism is like jail. you wont get to sit home and write your novella. you start at the bottom doing manual labor. a bus will pick you up for your 12 hour shift each day. however, you may know a famous socialist and thus get a better job, one indoors.

Ha! Google busses people around for twelve hour days as well but then they also extort business owners and ruin our mental health on top of it. Seems the same to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council president’s budget proposal would cause all homeowners to pay more in taxes. Households with $75k in income would take a harder hit than households making $150k. The only clear winners in this are landlords, whose county tax burden would not increase at all, other than the rising assessments that are hitting everyone.

Oh for goodness' sake. Not everything is about landlords and developers. She's proposing a true progressive income tax that will help almost everyone making less than $300,000. Many of whom rent.

And landlords won't have to pass the huge elrich property tax increase on to renters.

If it had been truly progressive than lower earners would get a bigger break than higher earners and we wouldn’t be shifting more tax burden onto wage earnings. The tax plan is a tax increase for most households and a regressive one at that.

The plan is to drive out anyone with high earners. That leaves the middle class as the high earners. After all, there are more of them to tax and they don't have the ear of the local politicians.

The council president’s plan will hit the middle class and retirees harder than the Elrich plan. If the council president paid property taxes, her own bill would go up more than 12 percent before even accounting for the increase in assessed value. It’s almost as if the council is trying to make home ownership unaffordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council president’s budget proposal would cause all homeowners to pay more in taxes. Households with $75k in income would take a harder hit than households making $150k. The only clear winners in this are landlords, whose county tax burden would not increase at all, other than the rising assessments that are hitting everyone.

Oh for goodness' sake. Not everything is about landlords and developers. She's proposing a true progressive income tax that will help almost everyone making less than $300,000. Many of whom rent.

And landlords won't have to pass the huge elrich property tax increase on to renters.

If it had been truly progressive than lower earners would get a bigger break than higher earners and we wouldn’t be shifting more tax burden onto wage earnings. The tax plan is a tax increase for most households and a regressive one at that.

The income tax proposal is progressive. Lower earners would be taxed less than they are now. And less than higher-earners. We are shifting less tax burden onto wage earnings, not more.

Overall, anyone who owns the house they live in will pay more in taxes. That’s at any income level. The increase in a homeowner’s tax burden is HIGHER the less money they make. That’s regressive.

On a percentage basis, the effective tax rate goes up more under NFG’s proposal for cheaper houses than it would under Elrich’s proposal. That makes the property tax portion of her proposal more regressive than Elrich’s proposal.

Finally, investment properties see no tax increase at all. If you raise taxes on workers but don’t raise taxes on capital assets, that’s regressive.

NFG has been the back-room champion of developers, even as Friedson has been the baby-faced shill. The bread and circuses they tout for the downtrodden are, at once, less than that needed for the truly poor, inefficient in their delivery in comparison to some alternatives and of minimal/marginal benefit to most of those whom they claim to help when compared to the much larger benefit that will be accruing to the development-investment class.

Why would that last group bother to pass on tax savings to renters when the market will bear rents not reflecting that savings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council president’s budget proposal would cause all homeowners to pay more in taxes. Households with $75k in income would take a harder hit than households making $150k. The only clear winners in this are landlords, whose county tax burden would not increase at all, other than the rising assessments that are hitting everyone.

Oh for goodness' sake. Not everything is about landlords and developers. She's proposing a true progressive income tax that will help almost everyone making less than $300,000. Many of whom rent.

And landlords won't have to pass the huge elrich property tax increase on to renters.

If it had been truly progressive than lower earners would get a bigger break than higher earners and we wouldn’t be shifting more tax burden onto wage earnings. The tax plan is a tax increase for most households and a regressive one at that.

The income tax proposal is progressive. Lower earners would be taxed less than they are now. And less than higher-earners. We are shifting less tax burden onto wage earnings, not more.

Overall, anyone who owns the house they live in will pay more in taxes. That’s at any income level. The increase in a homeowner’s tax burden is HIGHER the less money they make. That’s regressive.

On a percentage basis, the effective tax rate goes up more under NFG’s proposal for cheaper houses than it would under Elrich’s proposal. That makes the property tax portion of her proposal more regressive than Elrich’s proposal.

Finally, investment properties see no tax increase at all. If you raise taxes on workers but don’t raise taxes on capital assets, that’s regressive.

NFG has been the back-room champion of developers, even as Friedson has been the baby-faced shill. The bread and circuses they tout for the downtrodden are, at once, less than that needed for the truly poor, inefficient in their delivery in comparison to some alternatives and of minimal/marginal benefit to most of those whom they claim to help when compared to the much larger benefit that will be accruing to the development-investment class.

Why would that last group bother to pass on tax savings to renters when the market will bear rents not reflecting that savings?

Because the market will rise at a slower pace. You don’t seem to understand basic economics or real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council president’s budget proposal would cause all homeowners to pay more in taxes. Households with $75k in income would take a harder hit than households making $150k. The only clear winners in this are landlords, whose county tax burden would not increase at all, other than the rising assessments that are hitting everyone.

Oh for goodness' sake. Not everything is about landlords and developers. She's proposing a true progressive income tax that will help almost everyone making less than $300,000. Many of whom rent.

And landlords won't have to pass the huge elrich property tax increase on to renters.

If it had been truly progressive than lower earners would get a bigger break than higher earners and we wouldn’t be shifting more tax burden onto wage earnings. The tax plan is a tax increase for most households and a regressive one at that.

The income tax proposal is progressive. Lower earners would be taxed less than they are now. And less than higher-earners. We are shifting less tax burden onto wage earnings, not more.

Overall, anyone who owns the house they live in will pay more in taxes. That’s at any income level. The increase in a homeowner’s tax burden is HIGHER the less money they make. That’s regressive.

On a percentage basis, the effective tax rate goes up more under NFG’s proposal for cheaper houses than it would under Elrich’s proposal. That makes the property tax portion of her proposal more regressive than Elrich’s proposal.

Finally, investment properties see no tax increase at all. If you raise taxes on workers but don’t raise taxes on capital assets, that’s regressive.

NFG has been the back-room champion of developers, even as Friedson has been the baby-faced shill. The bread and circuses they tout for the downtrodden are, at once, less than that needed for the truly poor, inefficient in their delivery in comparison to some alternatives and of minimal/marginal benefit to most of those whom they claim to help when compared to the much larger benefit that will be accruing to the development-investment class.

Why would that last group bother to pass on tax savings to renters when the market will bear rents not reflecting that savings?

Because the market will rise at a slower pace. You don’t seem to understand basic economics or real estate.

Both you and PP seem to agree what the market will set rents irrespective of what the tax rate is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The council president’s budget proposal would cause all homeowners to pay more in taxes. Households with $75k in income would take a harder hit than households making $150k. The only clear winners in this are landlords, whose county tax burden would not increase at all, other than the rising assessments that are hitting everyone.

Oh for goodness' sake. Not everything is about landlords and developers. She's proposing a true progressive income tax that will help almost everyone making less than $300,000. Many of whom rent.

And landlords won't have to pass the huge elrich property tax increase on to renters.

If it had been truly progressive than lower earners would get a bigger break than higher earners and we wouldn’t be shifting more tax burden onto wage earnings. The tax plan is a tax increase for most households and a regressive one at that.

The income tax proposal is progressive. Lower earners would be taxed less than they are now. And less than higher-earners. We are shifting less tax burden onto wage earnings, not more.

Overall, anyone who owns the house they live in will pay more in taxes. That’s at any income level. The increase in a homeowner’s tax burden is HIGHER the less money they make. That’s regressive.

On a percentage basis, the effective tax rate goes up more under NFG’s proposal for cheaper houses than it would under Elrich’s proposal. That makes the property tax portion of her proposal more regressive than Elrich’s proposal.

Finally, investment properties see no tax increase at all. If you raise taxes on workers but don’t raise taxes on capital assets, that’s regressive.

NFG has been the back-room champion of developers, even as Friedson has been the baby-faced shill. The bread and circuses they tout for the downtrodden are, at once, less than that needed for the truly poor, inefficient in their delivery in comparison to some alternatives and of minimal/marginal benefit to most of those whom they claim to help when compared to the much larger benefit that will be accruing to the development-investment class.

Why would that last group bother to pass on tax savings to renters when the market will bear rents not reflecting that savings?

Because the market will rise at a slower pace. You don’t seem to understand basic economics or real estate.

Great. This is a basic economics take of one aspect...and, to the degree that it might present a thought counter to the meat of the post, it presumes MoCo real estate will operate as a commodity with the elasticity of, say, soybeans.

Construct a Fourier series which would model the market's achievement of a temporary equilibrium over the time that lag might be in effect, accounting for population change and demographic dynamics, likely substitute housing trends, market entrants/exits and the like, in addition to the expected inventory changes from the enacted policies, and then run the derivatives to calculate the accumulation of the tax break value (plus or minus net expected efficiencies, of course) to the suppliers (vs. to the buyers/renters). Or take your own modeling approach -- there are several from which you might choose.

You'd still get disproportionality, there, with that rather marginal benefit to the consumer and rather outsized benefit to the developer/landlord/supplier. It's understood that this is how such incentives tend to work, but there doesn't seem to be anyone at the County Council who will question whether the juice is worth the squeeze (and there certainly isn't anyone willing to police the legislation to make sure that the breaks are given only when a more clearly defined societal benefit is realized as a result). Or who seem to be capable of considering available alternate approaches to address housing issues, not to mention examining the value of that versus potential alternate uses of the common wealth -- there are needs beside housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

this isnt how property taxes work, its not an unrealized gains tax. and my property didnt increase anywhere near 100%.

this is the problem with socialists. they own nothing and they want the government to tax everyone out of their property b/c they think they'll get it

you wont

glad states are looking at if property taxes are the best want to fund. maryland will go to war to keep property taxes but they'll be plenty of states that get rid of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

this isnt how property taxes work, its not an unrealized gains tax. and my property didnt increase anywhere near 100%.

this is the problem with socialists. they own nothing and they want the government to tax everyone out of their property b/c they think they'll get it

you wont

glad states are looking at if property taxes are the best want to fund. maryland will go to war to keep property taxes but they'll be plenty of states that get rid of them

DP. Agree on the potential faultiness of assumptions made (e.g., assuming your house -- or even a typical property -- appreciated that much because some properties did, and that that is the entire cause of the increased tax), but that applies to both sides of the debate (e.g., assuming 51% for school funding is out of line because it's...51%? Is this a magically inappropriate level? Have costs increased, perhaps at a rate different from general inflation? Have needs increased? What about accumulated infrastruture deficit that may have been the result of under-funding over prior decades that saw a lower comparator percentage?).

If we want government operations/services (police, parks, etc ), we need revenue. Call it what you will ("tariffs" or "fees" or the like), but that is all a tax of some sort at its heart. Even lottery revenue apportionments ("tax on the stupid") or government-policy-driven inflation ("stealth tax"). All taxes come from wealth of some kind, and each thing taxed is effectively discouraged by some marginal amount.

Taxing use (e.g., bridge tolls) discourages that use of a particular resource. Taxing sales discourages transaction activity (particularly useful for things like gasoline or tobacco, where the negative externalities are not well captured but the point of sale affords a relatively efficient assessment/collection mechanism). Taxing assets, like real estate, diminishes the value of the asset class. Taxing income diminishes incentive for obtaining that income. And so on.

Each might have a more or less appropriate reason. For example, road tolls might be set to pay for construction/upkeep of the road so that the burden is placed on the beneficiary, though beneficiaries of externalities (i.e., those not using the toll road but experiencing less traffic because of it) might be expected to support through some amount of more general taxation. More to present issues, impact taxes might be collected on development to cover the cost of expansion of associated demand for government services (i.e., for the additional residents/new businesses who might then occupy said development).

Government (and by that, in this case, I mean us as a society, presuming we have some reasonable role in choosing our government) needs to determine what things it wants to encourage/discourage via the amalgamation of taxes. If we deem that we have reached over-development, we might want to increase impact tax or related development fees -- even if that has to be taken to the state level to allow it. MoCo's present government clearly has chosen the opposite, trying to encourage development with lower associated tax burdens (along with lowering other hurdles, which might be seen as elimination of low-value or outdated regulation, but the effects of which are rather uncertain -- those regulations had purpose to ensure societal benefit).

Back to the various potential revenue sources. With limitations on the effectiveness of use taxes (at least until conputing/"AI" might better be employed to reduce over-burdensome human-oriented complexity), and with both those and sales taxes typically presenting societally regressive results, taxes on assets (to the extent they can be identified, and real estate is, perhaps, most easily so -- it would be hard for the government to track your jewelry, say) and/or income are the go-tos for most. Between these, while income can be tracked better, perhaps (for standard wage-earners and typical investments -- there is plenty either black market or otherwise hidden, the one more utilized at the lower end of income and the other more utilized at the higher end), it also presents a rather regressive option in comparison at the state/local level, with rates capped pretty early on the income scale (until/unless we change that). In addition, it may be difficult to present societal benefit of choosing to discourage income-related activity, particularly income related to employment rather than passive income related to investment, as the former is the more direct representation of economic activity/productivity that tends to build society, instead of choosing to diminish asset value.

While a mix of revenue sources in that amalgamation may be appropriate, the current economic landscape, societal needs and available tax paradigms may well make real estate tax the most appropriate lever to move. This is assuming that waste reduction is more difficult (I think most everyone, other than those benefitting from graft, would prefer that) and that austerity is less desired (probably more of a debate, there, largely between current haves and current have-nots, though that might depend on what is on the chopping block).

Of course, as you allude, MoCo & Maryland do not operate in a vacuum, and different situations in other municipalities/states (or even countries) may present tax regimes that would encourage investment and migration, leaving us with less, here, than might be hoped. It's not a simple matter, and the county/state should be much more careful in their associated decision-making than they have been in recent years. That might take a different set of elected representatives and a different mandate to government workers than those currently in place that seem to have been driven to a greater degree by special interests (some level of special interest always is in play) than we might like.

Talk about not a simple matter, though, as we shift from economics to politics...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

+1. Always amazing when people complain about their property taxes which means they have the good fortune of having their property value risen dramatically. If your property value went from $1 million to $2 million, sure the $10K increase in taxes would be annoying to some extent, but I would be celebrating my good fortune of having gained $1 million even if it's "unrealized" until I sell. Plus, those property taxes are deductible so if you're truly house poor, you'll get lots of it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

+1. Always amazing when people complain about their property taxes which means they have the good fortune of having their property value risen dramatically. If your property value went from $1 million to $2 million, sure the $10K increase in taxes would be annoying to some extent, but I would be celebrating my good fortune of having gained $1 million even if it's "unrealized" until I sell. Plus, those property taxes are deductible so if you're truly house poor, you'll get lots of it back.

"good fortune and luck" is how socialist explain everything and why they shouldnt win elections. Neighborhoods are valuable, not because of luck or good fortune. its the community, focusing on efforts to improve the quality of life for them and neighbors. Values go up when others want that same lifestyle and realize its not available in every community. its the hard work of the community.

thats being said, none of that means property taxes should align to increases. and Moco has increased property taxes acrross the board to fund their pet projects and its expensive being a sanctuary county.

property taxes are for services for the city/county. if the county needs to double that in a decade and STILL is in a deficit, thats a spending problem. too many (esp. socialists), want to increase taxes for more and more services that they promised. that shouldnt be the job of the citizen. Mandami and NYC is going to find this out the hard way

if a city wants to provide more services, they need to find new major businesses(which Moco and Md does not) to pay for them and not off the back of the citizenry. We arent their ATM's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

+1. Always amazing when people complain about their property taxes which means they have the good fortune of having their property value risen dramatically. If your property value went from $1 million to $2 million, sure the $10K increase in taxes would be annoying to some extent, but I would be celebrating my good fortune of having gained $1 million even if it's "unrealized" until I sell. Plus, those property taxes are deductible so if you're truly house poor, you'll get lots of it back.

DP. To keep from making folks (as) house poor after the fact with rate increases on top of assessment increases from unrealized gain, we could divide property tax increases between, say, that indexed to inflation and anything more or that associated with the purchase price and the unrealized gain, allowing one portion or the other, with interest, to accrue to a ledger that gets charged on later property transfer (e.g., at settlement from a sale or from estate bequest).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like textbook “angry white man syndrome”. Just a standard boilerplate maga rant. “Oh, my property taxes are too high!” “You’re spending MY money on brown people!” “I’ll close my remarks by threatening you.”

Fortunately there are more than enough good and decent people in MoCo to drown out violent screaming nutjobs like that a-hole.

why is it maga? i'm not maga and my property taxes have almost increased 100% in a decade or so. why should I be happy about that.

and before you talk about home prices, we havent gotten any better services in a decade to justify 100% increase in property taxes. 51% goes to MCPS and elrich wants a special assessment on top of the increases for Capital projects.

maybe you dont care but people are fed up.

Your property taxes increased 100% because the value of your home increased 100%

… you psychopath

+1. Always amazing when people complain about their property taxes which means they have the good fortune of having their property value risen dramatically. If your property value went from $1 million to $2 million, sure the $10K increase in taxes would be annoying to some extent, but I would be celebrating my good fortune of having gained $1 million even if it's "unrealized" until I sell. Plus, those property taxes are deductible so if you're truly house poor, you'll get lots of it back.

DP. To keep from making folks (as) house poor after the fact with rate increases on top of assessment increases from unrealized gain, we could divide property tax increases between, say, that indexed to inflation and anything more or that associated with the purchase price and the unrealized gain, allowing one portion or the other, with interest, to accrue to a ledger that gets charged on later property transfer (e.g., at settlement from a sale or from estate bequest).

If property taxes from your 100% gain in property value are so onerous to you, just sell and rent. You can rent a super fancy place with your hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of gains, much of which will be tax free. You can also move to a jurisdiction that has the property tax structure you so ardently desire (if one exists). As a bonus, hopefully you’ll be able to move to somewhere where people spend all day railing about “socialists,” just like you do.