Walter S

Yes. Mortgage companies are so nice! They pickup the tax bill, almost just like landlords .

Darn, I shouldn't have paid off that mortgage!

Jaywalk3r

It's an income tax credit in some states. It's an income tax deduction in other states. It is provided specifically to allow tenants to avoid paying taxes on the income they spent paying property taxes included in their rents.

It's no different from a property owner being allowed to take a deduction to avoid paying taxes on the income they spent paying property taxes.

It is very clear to those of us who do understand how taxes and rents work that you actually no nothing about this topic.

Walter S

He's not giving up though. You have to hand it to him

Roody

Wrong again! The tax credit mentioned has to do with reimbursing renters (high income or low income) because they are de facto payers of property tax. It has everything to do with property taxes and nothing to do with income levels.

The credit that you're referring to, for low income persons, is called the Earned Income Tax Credit and has absolutely nothing to do with renting property or with property taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

Allez3

Go back and read the linked file. Its a low income tax credit.

EIC is completely separate. The link is for income tax credits in a given State, says it right there in the text "means tested". Again, has nothing to do with property tax liability, but you knew that right?

While most property tax relief programs
are administered through the property tax system,
17 states and the District of Columbia allow homeowners
and renters to claim income tax credits.

Allez3

Facts are stubborn things Walt.

tandempower

Think how much a parking lot costs when you consider that each construction job created to clear and pave the lot also qualifies someone for unemployment benefits above the minimum, higher social security, etc. It might seem heartless to complain about people getting employment opportunities to make more money, but when you think about the fact that money goes toward driving and paying the costs of all the land-clearing and paving that makes driving possible, it begins to seem like a vicious cycle.

cooker

If you see the building primarily as a real estate investment and hope to sell it for a higher price, I suppose you could see the property tax as a cost of ownership, and the rental income as an unrelated bonus; but I would assume most rental property owners also expect the building to pay it's own way on a day to day basis, and in that case, rental income should cover costs, including taxes, upkeep, and mortgage payments. So whether you say the owner is paying the taxes and gets reimbursed from the rental income, or the renter is indirectly paying the taxes through their rent, it amounts to the same thing. It's the same as how people who buy produce pay the costs of shipping it to the store, through their purchase price. In fact, when you said property owners "write off" property taxes, that is the same thing as saying they cover the taxes out of their rental income.

rumrunn6

just gave a condo neighbor $300 so I can use his spot while my kids are home from college for the summer

Roody

You're saying the same thing I did, and the opposite of what you said on a previous post! You are a slippery one...

Sangetsu

Why should we subsidize free parking? The people who use those free spaces often park there to go shopping, to eat, or do other things. If they had to pay for parking, then they would likely so somewhere else to do these things, meaning that the shop keepers in your neighborhood would make less money, so there would be fewer jobs, and lower wages for those who did work. Parking is free for a reason, to increase the number of people who visit in cars.

Here in Japan it is very expensive to drive, road tolls are outrageous, gas is expensive. I pay $500 per month for a parking space in my building. If I want to drive my car out to Chiba to enjoy the countryside, or go the beach, it will cost me nearly $100 in road tolls (to go only 60 miles) on the aqua-line, plus gas. Public transportation to these places exists, but it is not convenient. The result of the high cost and effort to going outside the city means that most people don't bother. When few people visit the countryside, few people spend money there. Since few people visit or spend money, there are no jobs, so the rural areas are drying up, and those who can end up moving to the cities. There are more than 8 million vacant buildings in Japan, mainly outside the cities. The high cost of tolls and fuel raises the cost of goods people buy, as these costs are added to the prices. Living in Japan is very expensive, so expensive that fewer people are having children, and the population is declining by hundreds of thousands per year. This might sound good to some, but for government entitlement programs, it is catastrophic, as they cannot afford to pay pensioners and such unless an ever greater number of people enroll each year. This decline is reducing consumption, and causing deflation, which also hurts the government, as deflation increases the burden of it's 1000 trillion yen mountain of debt. With 2% inflation, a national debt decreases by 2% every year without the government having to pay a penny on it. With 2% deflation, the government has to spend billions in servicing costs just to keep the balance steady.

What sounds good in principle is often bad in practice. When you increase the costs of driving, people drive less, and the cost to transport goods increases. Think about the people who make the cars, produced the metals, plastics, etc. The people who own and work at gas stations, repair shops, accessory stores, and so on. The economic effect finds it's way to you in the form of fewer jobs, lower wages, and higher prices for transported goods (and everything you buy must be transported).

Roody

You say that " Public transportation to these places exists, but it is not convenient." It seems that one way to increase trips to the countryside would be to make public transportation more convenient, rather than making cars cheaper.

Ekdog

You took the words right out of my mouth.

tandempower

This is a faulty understanding of growth. All these expenditures generate business and jobs for a while, but as market-saturation nears, the economy crashes harder because of the dependency that is created. The healthy way to look at economic transactions is as a supplement to the life-activities that we should be able to manage on our own without the help of spending and trade. E.g. people have always prepared their own food. They do not need to be paid to do so; only time, ingredients, and cooking equipment are needed. The economy is how we organize the production of things like cooking equipment and ingredients so we can cook for ourselves. Restaurants are fine but they are a huge waste of time that would take over our time if everyone would want to eat out all the time. The problem in 'robust' capitalist economies is that we start thinking it's a good idea to sacrifice all people's time for the sake of making money, and then suddenly we're no longer free to live outside of economic activity. I.e. we become slaves to commerce, trade, investment, and jobs.

In a dense population like Japan's, cars indeed need to be priced out of reach for most people. Enjoying the countryside can either be reserved for the very rich, which it seems to be according to your post, or forms of non-destructive recreation need to become popular that allow people to spend time in nature without harming it or each other. Leave-no-trace hiking and bike-camping are good examples, though they are difficult for many people who are accustomed to more luxurious accommodations than what can be carried in a backpack or on a touring bike.

Seattle Forrest

Knock yourself out. If you're shopping at Walmart, you can't afford the boutique stores in the neighborhoods pushing for 1 hour parking limits. You would have been one of the people who park there and then don't shop which hurts the stores because you're occupying a space that somebody who might actually be a customer could have taken. So by going to Walmart you're actually improving the bottom line at the mom and pop shops I was talking about originally.

jfowler85

Detroit can't afford anything.

Too many assumptions built into this to make it work. 1) Not everyone who shops at xmart does so because they can't afford to pay their competitor's pricing...my wife and I run to xmart occasionally because it's much closer than our favorite boutique grocer. Some people just shop the sales and go everywhere...I remember the Santa Barbara whole foods had great sales that rivaled xmart pricing. 2) xmart is a giant corporation which subsidizes the individual costs of its own parking spaces in such a manner that a handful of unused spots isn't hurting them in any significant way...that's an economic study I'd like to see. Besides, the person to whom you are replying is saying that they would shop at xmart, so that kind of takes the gas out of your argument.

Ding ding ding, right on the money, as they say.

CliffordK

So, cutting down on customers improves store's bottom line? You need to open a LBS

I would hope a downtown shopping district has a mix of stores. So I might not be in the market for a thousand dollar handbag. But, I may find myself sitting down for a cup of coffee or deli sandwich. Some of the best bookstores are in small shops. Maybe an antique store. Or a hardware store. And, who doesn't need shoes every once in a while.

Every window shopper, or person that walks through a store's door doesn't necessarily buy something. But, eliminate the window shoppers an foot traffic, and you've got nothing left.

And, don't be too quick to judge people. There is a group of frugal millionaires that don't follow all the trends that on might otherwise expect. And, that group may be growing with the recently retired baby boomers.

jfowler85

Seattle Forrest had a very convoluted way of saying that, by a non-shopper occupying a potential shopper's xmart space, then the potential/assumed money not spent at xmart would somehow translate to competitor's profit margin.

Ekdog

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...9725&tid=ss_tw

bmthom.gis

I'm not reading the whole thread, but free parking is a good thing. Especially in keeping a downtown area vibrant. If I didn't already have a garage pass, I wouldn't come out to the part of the city I work in very often at all. A lot of people get turned off into coming downtown for an evening if they have to pay extra to park. It seems the city really only makes its money in issues parking citations, and not really much in the way of what's in the meter.

I would rather see big garages and lots be built outside of the city with free shuttles in and around to different districts. While I might be happy biking all over, I know with a certainty my Better Half would absolutely hate it

Walter S

Oh, should we start over so you don't have to read? Your post ignores factors such as that in the post immediately proceeding yours. You should at least say why you don't care about the issues raised about free parking and how you're sure you're right about the things you didn't read about.

tandempower

But people want to come downtown and so if parking costs more, there is more incentive to use park-and-ride transit to get downtown.

That would be a first step toward consolidating traffic and making existing roads/lanes less congested.

bmthom.gis

I read the article. I have serious doubts that if the Publix in the downtown areas charged for parking that the cost of groceries would go down. Living in a state that already disproportionately burdens the poor with taxes, free downtown parking seems a very, very minor issue. I would rather see more free parking, especially in shopping, arts, and entertainment districts, to help keep a vibrant city that those who want an evening out but don't want to/can't really afford to pay an additional $5-10 to park can still come and visit.

As much as I would much rather love to see a free transit system with parking "hubs" outside of the city limits, I am realistic enough to know that isn't going to happen. Even if it did, too many people would still drive all the way to their destination. The only way around that is to implement ridiculously slow speed limits on all roads but the main thoroughfares - which, again, is going to keep people home. Maybe most people in this sub live in a city and they don't have to come from 10 or more miles away, so that's not a concern of theirs. Maybe your cities are doing just fine and aren't in the middle of revitalizing themselves.

tandempower

Thank you for this post, which perfectly illustrates the conundrum faced in so many areas regarding transportation reform.

If people are 'poor,' why are they driving in the first place? If they have the means to pay for cars, insurance, and driving, why should people going carfree subsidize their parking spaces? You are basically saying that people who do put in the effort to live carfree should subsidize those who don't. How is that fair or right? How is driving a need and not a privilege?

Why can't the people who really want to drive just pay to park, while others save the money they would spend on parking by taking transit? Aren't you just encouraging and subsidizing driving for the sake of stimulating people to go downtown?

jon c. 

The problem a lot of cities face is people don't want to come downtown. Creating more disincentives will help fuel more sprawl.