Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/pay-cut_n_807241.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...241.html</a> <> Wages for American workers have fallen dramatically since the financial crisis, in what will likely turn out to be the worst such plunge since the Great Depression, the Wall Street Journal reports. When hard times hit, employers typically are reluctant to reduce wages. But this downturn has been different: More than half the workers who found new work by early 2010 after losing jobs between 2007 and 2009 said their pay had dropped, according to Labor Department data cited in the WSJ. A full 36 percent said the new job paid 20 percent less than their former one. While headlines have focused on the national unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, the pain extends far beyond those 14.5 million who are deemed officially unemployed by government statistics. The only other instance of such severe wage reductions since the Depression was during the recession of the early 1980s, but the current slump is on track to be far worse, the WSJ notes. Among people who are lucky enough to have work, living standards have been significantly downgraded. Almost a third of America's working families are now considered low-income, earning less than twice the official poverty threshold, according to a recent report. The recession reversed a period of improvement. This trend spells a grim future for the American worker, and for the American economy. "They're no longer working actively, with a chance to advance and gain more experience and skills," said Brandon Roberts, manager of the Working Poor Families Project and a co-author of the report on low-income working families. "They're just putting pieces together to stay afloat, to meet basic needs." <> (more at the link) "Almost a third of America's working families are now considered low-income, earning less than twice the official poverty threshold, according to a recent report. The recession reversed a period of improvement." We're the richest nation on the planet, yet almost ONE THIRD of our country lives just barely above the poverty line. Wages drop while corporate profits continue to increase and break all-time records. Most decidedly, we are NOT a "Christian" nation.
Originally Posted By fkurucz The median household income in the county where I live dropped over 10% durig the past decade, even during the so called "boom years" when houses popped up like mushrooms after a good rain. >>Most decidedly, we are NOT a "Christian" nation.<< I agree 100%. If it was a crime to be Christian, prosecuters would have a hard time sending people to jail, at least based on their behavior. In fact, the Book of Acts describes how early Christians lived a communal lifestyle, handing over ALL their wealth to the community. >>We're the richest nation on the planet, yet almost ONE THIRD of our country lives just barely above the poverty line.<< And we are being told that this is needed "to keep America strong".
Originally Posted By pecos bill Amazing how throughout history the greedy few have always managed to take it all away from the masses. I know many people who are making less money now than the ten dollars an hour I made as a construction laborer right out of high school thirty five years ago! Factor the cost of living increase and it's just bewildering that anyone can even survive. While some employers are really having a rough go, others are using the hard times mantra as a way of wringing even more out of workers while giving them less and less. So much for a great big beautiful tomorrow. What a pathetic joke this country has become!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Factor the cost of living increase and it's just bewildering that anyone can even survive.<< There's a reason why foodstamp recipients have ballooned from 26m to over 40 million in just over 4 years.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 be glad you could live in ILlinois where the givernor used a lame duck ession midnite 'deal' to pass a 66% state income tax increase that wouldn't have a prayer in hell the next day. So with the highest county sales tax 10.5%, the highest gasoline prices in the country ( paid $388 yesterday) , the highest natural gas and electric rates ( all because of taxes)- $7/pack cigarettes for any smokers left- and outrageous property taxes- an independent council that tracks taxes across the US moved the Chicago area from 14th most expensive to #1 -- woo hoo ! gotta love this hell hole of corrupt pols
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^So why not vote with your feet? We left California behind and it was the best decision we ever made. Indiana isn't that far away, right?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << gotta love this hell hole of corrupt pols >> You might also add the corrupt banks onto that list. Did you know that banks pay no property tax on real estate that they hold in foreclosure? On one hand, they foreclose on the properties and kick out the residents, but don't claim to have any obligation to pay property taxes as the owner of the note on the property. The largest single factor in local government financial woes right now is the non-payment of property taxes -- largely because of the foreclosure problem. It's time that we treat banks just like every property owner in American and force them to pay the taxes due on real estate that they control.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Did you know that banks pay no property tax on real estate that they hold in foreclosure?<< I didn't, but color me shocked that their lobbyists pulled that off. /sarcasm So corporations are people with the same rights to free speech and donations in campaigns, but they aren't people when it comes to property tax? Glad we cleared that up.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Did you know that banks pay no property tax on real estate that they hold in foreclosure? >>> Are you saying that for the period of time a bank owns a foreclosed property, no property tax is due or collected, ever, for that period of time?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ I know for a fact that is the case in Florida. I have not confirmed, but suspect, it is the case nationwide. The bank-owned homes also don't pay any sanitation fees or other municipal fees. Oddly, though, the banks maintain insurance policies in the event the homes are damaged or destroyed. It seems the banks only pay the ownership interests that suit their profit motive. Don't all homeowners wish they could act the same?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I know for a fact that is the case in Florida. >>> Could you please cite a reference? <<< I have not confirmed, but suspect, it is the case nationwide. >>> What happens in many states is that anytime the property owner stops paying their property taxes, the local gov't sells an interest-bearing tax bond to a third party. So, the gov't gets its tax money, and the private bondholder has a lien on the property for the value of the bond (which is the property tax that was due, plus however much interest accumulates on the bond). This way, the local gov't always gets its tax money more or less on time, with private financing paying for taxpayers in default, and the property owner is on the hook for the tax plus interest before they can sell the property. It would not surprise me if a bank holding foreclosed property simply doesn't pay the property tax, but it would surprise me to find that no tax was due. That is, what I *suspect* happens is that the past due taxes go to private bonds for payment, and then the bank must pay these off as part of the closing process whenever it eventually sells the foreclosed property.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt I know in MA whomever buys the foreclosed property is usually responsible for any taxes or fees not paid by the bank/past owner
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Did you know that banks pay no property tax on real estate that they hold in foreclosure/// hmmmm?????? But tax authorities can place a lien on the property and either wait for a sale and be the first in line to be paid or get all proactive and force a sale to collect the outstanding property tax obligation. Either way they will collect at some point in time.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I know in MA whomever buys the foreclosed property is usually responsible for any taxes or fees not paid by the bank/past owner/// Again, hmmmmm???? I can't refute what you wrote but it sure doesn't sound right.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But tax authorities can place a lien on the property and either wait for a sale and be the first in line to be paid or get all proactive and force a sale to collect the outstanding property tax obligation. Either way they will collect at some point in time. >>> That too. For several reasons above, the notion that "banks don't pay property taxes on foreclosed property" just doesn't sound right. For the reasons I cite, it *might* be a half-truth at best, and if so, one that's no doubt put out there by someone that has an axe to grind with the banks. Unless several of us are wrong here, the tax man will get 100% of all the taxes he's due on real estate, perhaps in some cases having to wait until the foreclosure sale closes. I think the real impact on declining property taxes and how they are affecting local government is the decline in housing prices. Let's assume that 100% of property taxes are paid in full and on time. Even in that case, in the areas that have seen housing prices decline 40-50%, that means property tax assessments have declined by the same amount, unless rates have been adjusted upward. That's the real story behind property taxes and local gov't deficits, not that "banks don't pay taxes."
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Unless several of us are wrong here, the tax man will get 100% of all the taxes he's due on real estate, perhaps in some cases having to wait until the foreclosure sale closes. >> When you have a high number of foreclosures in the system, that results in large current deficts, regardless of whether those deficits will be paid back in the future. Cities have the choice of cutting back on services to deal with the deficits caused by the foreclosure problem or raising taxes. The future may bring a return in revenues, but that doesn't solve the problems of the current day.
Originally Posted By barboy2 I think that some believe that property taxes are placed on the owner or title holder of the property(like lenders who executed foreclosure on a property via trust deed) when they are really secured directly against the property itself.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< When you have a high number of foreclosures in the system, that results in large current deficts, regardless of whether those deficits will be paid back in the future. >>> Not if the "tax lien certificate" program is used, as I described above. Under that program, local governments sell off their interest in delinquent property tax receivables to private parties, making the gov't whole. It's then the private party that waits for the property owner to pay up, including interest, perhaps for years. And a quick search shows that Florida uses such a system. So, any higher rate of property tax delinquencies result in at most a slowdown in tax revenue for a small number of months (i.e. the time lag from when taxes are normally received and when the tax certificates are issued).
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^So why not vote with your feet? We left California behind and it was the best decision we ever made. Indiana isn't that far away, right? ------------------ small busineses leaving very quickly for Inndiana and Wisconsin ( who is giving thema 5 year no tax deal)- but no offense to anyone here fromIndiana, but if you have lived in CHicaog ( or LA for 2 years) your whole life- living in Indiana not much of an option, same weather far less amenities -- but Texas and Florida are both on the radar 18 months for now when youngest heads off to college
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< So why not vote with your feet? >>> That's ultimately the second-level governor that keeps states from spending/taxing too much. The first of course is the majority of voters. But even if the voters, directly or indirectly, approve of vastly increased taxes in order to support spending, what they can't control is people or businesses that get fed up and leave the state for greener pastures. I think it's a great check and balance. Although, as you point out, it's not perfect. A Chicago-ite has to consider "Gee, I have higher taxes where I am, but I have to weigh that against having to live in Wisconsin." Many will choose at least some higher taxes to remain where they are, but only to a point.
