In his work, “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville notes, “A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it,” and he questions whether a free society can long survive that discovery. Obviously that discovery has been made, for many more are eligible to vote than are required to pay, and many who are required to pay are required to pay more than they can afford. Is this what the founders of this Democracy in America sacrificed their fortunes and lives to secure? I think not!
Now it is true that the descendents of the agents of old King George live on in Washington and Springfield, and they tax much more than tea.
But it is the reincarnations of those more notorious Tax collectors of Biblical fame who reside in our local seats of government. In like manner as those who confiscated in the name of Caesar and Herod, these publicans attach themselves not only to the current fruit of our labor, but they also have the audacity to lay claim to the essential roofs over our heads. Apparently, each June and September, these fellow citizens of ours have nothing better to do than enter our private dwellings and demand the silverware.
We have not yet been compelled to sell our sons and daughters into servitude to meet their annually increasing levies against our family homes. But, like the peasants of old in Palestine, many of us have had to mortgage our houses and lands to pay these taxes, and any of us who cannot pay the last farthing will shortly find our persons and kin thrown out into the street.
And what do they use these forcibly collected monies for? Some for services to the common good, too be sure. But much of it is used to built monuments to themselves; Civic Centers, airports, office buildings, and courthouses. And of course they must always be constructing bigger and better facilities in which to secularize our children, much as the Herods of old used the taxes from the Jewish people to forcibly Hellenize their culture.
The income taxes of the current King George, while not born by all, are at least only a one-time levy on our annual increase. The sales taxes of his vassal Rob are at least a levy on the consumption of all of us, (and on luxuries which are occasionally enjoyed by even the common citizen if he has a little something left over after paying his taxes.)
But the Real Estate Tax is Regressive and Oppressive. It is a tax, not on earnings but on principle. It is a tax not on spending but on savings. It is a tax, not on the peripherals of living but on the essential of family life. It is an ever recurring and increasing levy on false and inflated home values that has to be paid with the real sweat of real brows.
Presidential candidate Clinton has recently called for moratorium on foreclosures. What is needed is the abolition of one of the causes of these personal and family catastrophes – the Real Estate tax on private family homes.
Dennis W Dillard
Hanna City, IL
So CJ are you saying this is a thought you’re friendly to?
Bravo, Mr. Dillard! You could have added several more of the property tax expenditures for which forcing payment on threat of making someone homeless should constitute a crime, like, for instance, rec-of-a-plexes, bike trails, swimming pools, and gateway buildings, to name a few, but it was a compelling piece.
James,
No, I don’t necessarily agree with Mr. Dillard. But I’m always open to discussing opposing viewpoints.
If I may misquote a famous saying, “property taxes are the worst way to raise revenue, except for all the others.” What is missing from Mr. Dillard’s opinion piece is an alternative source of funding. I would assume that he sees the need for cities, schools, and other taxing bodies to raise revenue, but simply disagrees with the method (property taxes). Fair enough. But what method does he advocate? What is the fairer way to raise revenue?
CJ, How about use taxes for non-essential things. You use the hiker/biker trail, guess what you pay for it! You use the RecPlex, you pay for it! Use the Gateway Building, you pay for it! We need public safety, roads, schools (open to some debate – public vs. private etc.), so we all pay through various taxes. The bottom line is that we need to limit what government does and what taxes it collects. Real Estate Taxes are among the worse. I remember when Illinois had the personal property tax – cars, motorcycles, trucks, mobile homes, and I believe that the railroads paid huge taxes on locomotives and cars and more. The personal property tax was eliminated by the new Illinois constitution in the 1970’s. Some cities (and Peoria had this in the 50’s) the hated vehicle wheel tax which required a sticker on your windshield. The new Illinois constitution was to put the burden of education funding on the state coffers but state politicos have kept that from happening. I believe that elections should be held annually so that we citizens can have a more democratic voice over how our money is being spent and we can throw the unresponsive fools out. Those “citizens” that choose to not participate in the process (disability exemption and automatic for over 70) should be taxed for not being good citizens. It is obvious that our current system needs some changes because it just ain’t working like it should.Those are just some of my ideas – what do you think?????
how many acres at $3500-13,000 an acre to make a worth of a million. not many. Bradley recently paid $13,000 an acre for farmland at the corner of Fox road and Rt. 92. Check it out at the Recorder of Deeds.
Mister Ed — Well, a few things.
First, the city collected a little over $22 million in property tax revenue in 2007. I don’t think there are enough non-essential things to tax to make up that difference.
Secondly, what would other taxing bodies do, such as the school district? Setting aside the fiscal irresponsibility of District 150 for a moment, what is a properly-run district going to tax if they can’t tax property? Or would you just do away with publicly-funded education altogether? What about the county?
Third, as far as cutting unnecessary stuff, yes there is fat that could be trimmed, but most of the budget is non-discretionary. Salaries, benefits, public works, public safety — that’s the lion’s share of the budget. And we haven’t even touched on the city’s multi-million-dollar CSO (combined sewer overflow) fix they’ll be facing soon.
I guess I just don’t see a viable way we could do away with property taxes, unless we want our sales taxes to skyrocket.
CJ: the current alternative is to park a trailer in the middle of no-where. Much of the problem is due to the allotment of taxes based upon “value” of the home “ability of owner to pay” one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, rather than the apportionment of services based upon the amount of services used by the owner of the property. Case in point is the $15k house on the southside of Peoria which has 10 people living in it that have a need for 10 people’s worth of garbage, police, fire, school and social services. This house will contribute ZERO to the $22 million that you mentioned. Meanwhile the $200k house in which an educated 2 parent family resides, recycles their garbage, uses less utilities, does not use up any jail cells, sends their kids to private school and does not use any social services, they pay several thousand dollars to subsidize the house on the southside.
Eventually there is a tipping point where the people paying decide, “…can’t beat them, join them…” and cut their overhead because they just can’t afford to pay the taxes and have time left to see their kids.
If you can’t afford a house, don’t buy one. If you can’t afford the land, don’t buy it.
Apartments and condos are very nice…
It was the people buying homes hoping to “turn” them or get rich off inflating home prices that are suffering from the mortgage problems. Don’t gamble with the roof over your head.
Variable rate mortgages? Who came up with that lame idea?
Chase — Property taxes are based on the value of the land and improvements, not the homeowner’s ability to pay (although there are some protections built in for the elderly). As for the rest of your comment, it depends on how you look at it. The high-density land use on the south side actually uses less public works services per resident than the low-density land use on the north side. The need for jail cells and social services are not produced by the land/property and are thus irrelevant to the argument. Services like police, fire, and schools benefit the community at large. The police officer that stops a violent offender in the $15K house on the south side is protecting the whole city, including the residents in the $200K house on the north side. The fire department that puts out the fire next door to your house protects your house as much as your neighbor’s. Public schools help provide an educated workforce and future leaders for the city, as well as the opportunity for the poorer among us to lift themselves out of poverty.
I’m not saying property taxes are perfect. They’re not. I just don’t know what the alternative is for raising the revenue we need. If someone has an answer, I’m listening. (I’m surprised no one has mentioned land value taxation yet….) 🙂
C.J. – I cannot say I agree with all Chase had to say but I do agree that property taxes are pricing families out of Peoria. I just sold my home for a loss after a year on the market and upon reviewing the closing statement learned the assessed value on my property went up and increased the property taxes by $750. The property I sold was a modest home with 4 bedrooms, perfect for a family and the price was obviously reduced given the current housing market. But . . . I have to believe property taxes of $7000 plus present a hardship for many families. I only lived in my home for 5 years and in that time my taxes went up $2200. I think it is a problem when your monthly property tax obligation rivals you monthly mortgage payment.
I do not know what the alternative is for raising revenue but it does not make sense to make Peoria unaffordable for families to reside in.
The question is not which is the most efficient method available to enable Pharaohs to build cities and tombs. At issue is the morality of forcing some, (but not all,) to the making of an ever increasing quota of bricks.
The question is not which services are essential and which are non-essential. Rather, it is the immorality of treating some people as essential and others as non-essential that must be avoided.
Now, raiding the pantries of only the ants, in the name of providing services to all six legged creatures, not only demonstrates the essentialness of ants, but also implies the non-essentialness of grasshoppers. This is hardly a democratic thing to do, (intentionally or non-intentionally,) for our ideals tell us that, “All insects are created equal.”
(And, one wonders, how many who would otherwise be decent ants have professed grasshopperism in order to avoid the aardvark? Or how many have just migrated elsewhere like so many butterflies?)
OK – to get to the point plainly!
If able bodied home owners must labor several weeks each year for local government in order to keep their houses, why should not all able bodied citizens be asked to labor an equal amount of time for local government, in order to keep, if nothing else, their honor as men. Would we not all gladly pay our share if asked nicely?
No – because humanity by its very nature does not pay taxes voluntarily. All government revenues are collected at the point of an implied, and sometimes even a literal, gun.
And thus, it is clear why the current form of local taxation is so practical to collectors, if only in the negative sense. Taxing bodies are not willing to increase their draconian methods to the level at which those without illiquid equity can be forced to pay.
It is only the turkey who is chained to the post, (the door post of his house that is,) who will stand still long enough to be caught like a pet. The undomesticated fowl must be apprehended with the expenditure of much greater courage and effort. The hypocrisy of the tax collector is like those who have no qualms about plucking and boiling birds, but distain the chase and violence of the hunt. While they claim that most modern virtue of practicality as their guide in the selection of their victims; in truth, it is laziness and lack of courage. They prefer sitting ducks!
I heard a little nibblet a couple weeks ago at a political meeting with a handful of democrats. As some of you might know there is a proposed amendment to the Illinois constitution being pushed to replace the constitutional requirement for a flat tax, to one enabling the use of progressive taxation. That is just a constitutional change, it doesn’t change your tax rate in and of itself. That would require further legislation.
The question came up as to whether the amendment had a chance of passing. I am inclined to say it has zero chance but who knows. Well someone more in the know than I, said that there was a deal being hatched in Springfield to replace property taxes with a progressive income tax and that deal was going to be used in the push for the passage of the amendment.
Something to ponder.