U.S. home prices are down to 1895 levels

[heavenlyboy34]

Take away the illegals and those who have been given "birthright" citizenship and it would have only grown by it's normal rate.

Can you make a value judgement about that? Good or bad? Is the "legal" population growing too slowly/fast? Thanks. /curious

[showpan]

So you pulled it out of your @$$. Thought so.

No. Owning land entitles one to pocket others' taxes, so as government spending on services and infrastructure has increased, so has land value.

I didn't pull anything out of my ass...lol....did you even try to look up the info other then the census numbers being off....of course you didn't. I read through at least 30 different newspapers and reports to get those numbers. I found it quite interesting. Post some numbers here and prove I'm wrong then.

Owning land does not allow you to pocket someone else's taxes....where did you ever get that idea? And that is not how land values were artificially inflated. I have absolutely no idea where you could possibly come up with such gibberish.

You aren't another one of those who read a couple books and thinks he knows everything are you?
Because it sounds like you do not have all that much real world experience.

[Suzu]

Aw, hell.... I should have waited to buy my house. My parents' new home in 1950 cost $8k. I can't imagine how cheap my present house would have been 55 years earlier than 1950!!!

[Roy L]

I didn't pull anything out of my ass...lol....did you even try to look up the info other then the census numbers being off....of course you didn't.

I proved you pulled your numbers out of your @$$. That means you don't get to accuse me of not looking things up -- which I of course did, and found zero (0) support for your claims.

I read through at least 30 different newspapers and reports to get those numbers.

And still can't provide any sources...

Post some numbers here and prove I'm wrong then.

I did, and I sourced them. You didn't. Until you provide sources, your numbers are @$$ numbers, nothing more.

Owning land does not allow you to pocket someone else's taxes....where did you ever get that idea?

Yes, it does. The landowner is privileged to charge others full market value for access to all the services and infrastructure government spending pays for, so all that tax money is being given to landowners. Land value is strictly equal to the tax-funded welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner. Landowners therefore pocket other people's taxes. QED.

And that is not how land values were artificially inflated.

Yes it is. Although interest rates and tax breaks can affect the ratios, the basic size of the subsidy is what determines land rent, the capitalization of which is land value.

I have absolutely no idea where you could possibly come up with such gibberish.

By knowing some economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_Theorem

Unlike you.

You aren't another one of those who read a couple books and thinks he knows everything are you?

<yawn> I have read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation. You all too obviously have not.

Because it sounds like you do not have all that much real world experience.

<yawn>

[showpan]

Yes, it does. The landowner is privileged to charge others full market value for access to all the services and infrastructure government spending pays for,

This makes absolutely no sense. A landowner charges rent based upon supply and demand and other factors such as expenses incurred through owning the land. If I am offering a rental for $500 and my neighbor is offering a similar one for $750, he will have to wait untill all the rentals cheaper than his are taken....gee, I never realized I was privileged...lol

so all that tax money is being given to landowners.

really, did you actually read that somewhere. How come I haven't gotten any money back then...lol...landowners pay more taxes than non land owners. You have it completely backwards. You are beginning to sound like a loon.

Land value is strictly equal to the tax-funded welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner.

Land Value is determined by supply and demand. If I have an acre for sale priced at $10,000 and my neighbor wants $15,000, guess who is going to sell theirs quicker. He will have to wait until enough people or investors buy up all of the land for less than $15,000 before he will sell his. And if I can't sell mine and lower the price even more, he will also have to lower his or he won't be selling for a long time...lol...Right now, they are so cheap because all of those investors are trying to dump them because the bubble popped and they are getting ready to go broke because of all the taxes they owe. i'm glad so many of them have lost their shirts. They suck. Home ownership should not be about making prices higher for those who actually want a home for their family.

Landowners therefore pocket other people's taxes. QED.

Exactly what taxes have I been pocketing? I'm the one who pays...lol...If I rent out, then I also pay another tax, insurance, and subject to building codes and regulations.
You may have read a lot of books, but you are obviously lacking real experience and common sense.

You still haven't posted any land prices yet, you claim I'm wrong, then back up your claim.

[Roy L]

A landowner charges rent based upon supply and demand and other factors such as expenses incurred through owning the land.

No, he does not. His expenses are completely irrelevant, and as the supply of land is fixed, the rent he charges is determined exclusively by demand. This has been known for 200 years. Demand for land is in turn determined by the economic advantage obtainable by using it, which arises from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. The land's physical qualities generally haven't changed since its value was zero, so all the increase in land value is due to government and the community.

If I am offering a rental for $500 and my neighbor is offering a similar one for $750, he will have to wait untill all the rentals cheaper than his are taken....gee, I never realized I was privileged...lol

What makes someone willing to pay the $500?

really, did you actually read that somewhere.

Yes, and I gave you a source, and it is obvious if you think about it (which you won't).

How come I haven't gotten any money back then.

You have. Unless you were foolish and bought in the bubble, you have been given the entire increase in your land's value, and it is far more than you have paid in property taxes.

landowners pay more taxes than non land owners.

But the non-landowners don't get anything back for their taxes. It all goes to landowners, because the landless must pay landowners full market value for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes pay for.

You have it completely backwards.

No, it is self-evident and indisputable that the landowner gets richer without lifting a finger, while the landless get poorer even while they do the producing. That can only happen because government is stealing from the productive and giving the money to landowners.

Land Value is determined by supply and demand.

It is determined by demand, as explained above.

If I have an acre for sale priced at $10,000 and my neighbor wants $15,000, guess who is going to sell theirs quicker. He will have to wait until enough people or investors buy up all of the land for less than $15,000 before he will sell his. And if I can't sell mine and lower the price even more, he will also have to lower his or he won't be selling for a long time...lol.

You have begun to understand: the landowner has no role whatever in setting the price of land. He is strictly a price taker. His expenses -- including taxes -- consequently have no effect whatever on the rental price people must pay for use of the land.

Right now, they are so cheap because all of those investors are trying to dump them because the bubble popped and they are getting ready to go broke because of all the taxes they owe.

Lie. They couldn't care less about the taxes, and you know it. Higher property tax rates just mean a lower purchase price, as proved by the Net Present Value Equation. It's the mortgage debt they can't pay, not the comparatively minuscule property taxes.

Home ownership should not be about making prices higher for those who actually want a home for their family.

That is a fine sentiment, but you haven't fully understood what it means.

Exactly what taxes have I been pocketing?

All the taxes spent on services and infrastructure that are more readily accessible from your land than cheaper land. And that's pretty much all of them.

I'm the one who pays...lol...If I rent out, then I also pay another tax, insurance, and subject to building codes and regulations.

You are being given a subsidy. That is why owning land is the most common and the most reliable route to wealth.

You may have read a lot of books, but you are obviously lacking real experience and common sense.

You can say that when you have refuted something I have written. That hasn't happened yet, and I won't be holding my breath.

You still haven't posted any land prices yet, you claim I'm wrong, then back up your claim.

I have proved you wrong, and I don't know why you think posting land prices would be relevant to that proof.

[showpan]

Roy, You have obviously never owned a house or sold property or you would know that almost all of what you say is complete nonsense. Another thing, the non land owner sends their children to schools that the landowner payed for. He drives on the roads that the landowner payed for. Walks on the sidewalks, etc, etc, etc. The fire dept is payed for by landowners along with the police and town workers....all payed for by landowners. If you look at most towns across America, their biggest income is from the land owners and property taxes. Sales taxes go to the state and other taxes such as motor vehicle do not even come close to the amount of property taxes. I get to deduct the interest and taxes I payed from my federal taxes, but I only get a small percentage of those federal taxes back unless I have a bunch of other deductions that have nothing at all to do with my land or my home.
You need to stop reading your books because you are coming up with false conclusions. Or at least talk to your parents and ask them before posting ridiculous economic gibberish. Common sense only comes from experience.

Edit: And one other thing, I do my own title searches. Anyone can go down to the records dept and look up a piece of property. I have been doing quite a few lately because I am getting ready to buy. Most of those investors do not have a mortgage, they payed cash. Have you been watching those get rich on real estate infomercials? Because you sound like you have sat through one too many seminars or infomercials or maybe one of those books that all spew the same lies promising Boats and Ho's...lol

[Roy L]

Roy, You have obviously never owned a house or sold property or you would know that almost all of what you say is complete nonsense.

LOL! I have owned property and in fact been a landlord. I don't own now because I think it is still a bad time to own in my area.

Another thing, the non land owner sends their children to schools that the landowner payed for.

Nope. The landless PAY THE LANDOWNER full market value for access to the schools the productive paid for. The landowner can't be paying for them because he isn't contributing anything, but is still getting richer. That means he must be taking, not paying. He just sits and gets richer as government and the community make "his" land more valuable with no contribution from him whatever. He is a pure parasite who steals from the landless.

He drives on the roads that the landowner payed for.

Another despicable fabrication. Landowners do not pay for roads, producers do, and the producer must then pay the landowner full market value for access to the roads his taxes just paid for.

Walks on the sidewalks, etc, etc, etc. The fire dept is payed for by landowners along with the police and town workers....all payed for by landowners.

No, that is nothing but a flat-out lie. The landowner qua landowner never pays taxes, he only ever REpays a small fraction of what he steals from the community in the first place. This is proved by the fact that he makes no contribution to production, yet gets richer anyway. As he makes no contribution, he can't be earning any money to pay taxes with. That he may write a check to the town treasury is irrelevant: he has to be getting a net subsidy. But he is no more paying for the schools, etc. than a thug who takes your wallet is paying for your cab fare home if he gives you back $20.

If you look at most towns across America, their biggest income is from the land owners and property taxes.

No, the landowners' income is from the town, the community, as proved by the fact that he gets richer without lifting a productive finger. You have it absolutely backwards.

Sales taxes go to the state and other taxes such as motor vehicle do not even come close to the amount of property taxes.

Wrong again. Property taxes as a fraction of both local and state government revenues have been declining for a century, and many towns now get only a minority of their revenue from property taxes. That is why land values got so out of control and then crashed: the relentless reduction in property tax rates meant the welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner was rapidly becoming exorbitant, astronomical, and unsustainable.

You need to stop reading your books because you are coming up with false conclusions.

I have proved my conclusions are correct. You might want to consider cracking a book for a change.

[madengr]

Have you been watching those get rich on real estate infomercials? Because you sound like you have sat through one too many seminars or infomercials or maybe one of those books that all spew the same lies promising Boats and Ho's...lol

LMAO! You jogged my memory. What was it, at lest 20 years ago with Tom Vu?

[showpan]

ok Roy,

Table 3
taxes paid to State and local Governments in 2004
State and Local Taxes
Average Amount
Per U.S. Household
Property Taxes $2,906
General Sales and Gross Receipts Taxes $2,240
Individual Income Taxes $1,984
Other Business Taxes $425
Corporate Income Taxes $380
Gasoline Sales Taxes $298
Other Selective Sales Taxes $258
Public Utilities Taxes $190
Insurance Receipts Taxes $129
Personal Motor Vehicle Licenses $120
Tobacco Excise Taxes $108
Business Motor Vehicle Licenses $67
Severance Taxes $61
Special Assessments Taxes $57
Personal Property Taxes $50
Estate and Gift Taxes $50
Alcoholic Beverages Excise Taxes $41
Other Personal Taxes $36
Total State and Local Taxes $9,400

This table was from 2004, taxes have gone up since then. This was on the first page of a google search and relevant to our discussion here. Most of the other hits were for individual towns which you could look at if you weren't lazy and blinded by you beer goggle laser book vision. The biggest burden is on the property owner, Roy, this makes your whole theory....crap.


Boats and Ho's

[showpan]

LMAO! You jogged my memory. What was it, at lest 20 years ago with Tom Vu?

Tom VU...classic boats and ho's...lol

Worldwide Prestige....lol