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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

+1

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.

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.