Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

While the idea and intention is correct — the median home value is around $375,000 in FL Less than 25% of FL homes will qualify — half (or more) of the homes that qualify are non-owner occupied This will eliminate property tax for about 10% of homeowners — which...

181,988 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Property taxes help fund schools, roads, emergency services, and local infrastructure. That part of the system matters and most people understand why those taxes exist. But the conversation changes when an 85 year old retiree on a fixed income is paying $15,000 a year just to stay in a home they already paid off decades ago. Property taxes are tied to rising home values. As neighborhoods become more expensive, assessments increase and tax bills rise with them. The problem is that homeowners do not need to sell their property, earn more income, or receive any actual cash for those bills to go up. A couple who bought a modest home in the late 1980s may now live in a property worth several times what they originally paid. On paper, they look wealthier. In reality, they may still be relying entirely on Social Security or retirement savings that have not kept pace with rising costs. That creates a situation where people can become “house rich but cash poor.” They technically own valuable property, but the monthly tax burden can become impossible to manage. Many states do offer relief programs for seniors, including homestead exemptions, tax freezes, and income based credits. But these programs are often difficult to access, limited by strict qualifications, or reduced when budgets tighten. The people who need the help most are often the least likely to successfully navigate the system. It is possible to support property taxes as a way to fund essential public services while also recognizing that the system needs reform for older homeowners living on fixed incomes. Those ideas can exist together. You can’t expect someone who’s 67, or 72, or 85 to keep paying the government $10,000-15,000 every year just to live in their own paid off house. If you defend this system you’re brainwashed. Nowhere else costs this much only here.

Uzi

28,595 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A few points on the Powering Canada Strong announcement that is important to understand; * Doubling Canada's electricity generation capacity is paramount. I just wish it wouldn't take 20+ years. We don't generate enough electricity to be self-sufficient or participate in future industries. We have no choice. Has to be done. It's something I called for a while and spoke on. * Linking the connectivity of Canada's fragmented grid. This is a must to increase productivity, and remove waste. It's a one step back for two steps forward type of investment. * the connection and expansion of the grid is one of the important things we need to do reach mining areas and develop these sectors and for the growth of smaller communities around. The problem with these whole announcement is that it is all net zero based which means it won't necessarily build the most reliable possible grid for the $ and will other ridiculous costs to be carbon tax trading based on the way. It's completely inefficient from capital planning point. Mark Carney says: It will require the spreading of costs over time using our AAA balance sheet so that ratepayers don't pay all of the costs of investments today. That means the government is planning to borrow MASSIVELY! That cost will appear not only in your electricity bill but also in the value of the CAD and interest costs that is already hitting record every single year. This plan is utilizing legitimate needed action to transform all of Canada's energy need into ideological driven carbon tax trade system and inefficient power generation that all together will cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of billions more than it should.

Kirk Lubimov

24,482 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce