Immigration

[Polish Leppy 22]

Of course it's speculation, but it's based in the fact that someone who is already doing something that is against law is not going to go to a place where there are going to be law enforcement officials. We'll have to move on if you still want to disagree with that.

Serious question - who pays for the property taxes on rented properties? Do they get a waiver so that no property tax gets paid? OR does the renter pay the property tax through the monthly rent payment to the landlord. The renter is paying for the property tax. The city can collect a lot more property taxes on an apartment building that has 60 apartment's vs 6 semi detached houses that would have been there.

I never made it a race thing? Where in my post did I mention race? All I've said is that illegal immigrants are often paying way more than what they're getting out of the system.

Your logic is faulty if you think illegal immigrants are avoiding ER's because of law enforcement. The local cops don't care and don't enforce immigration laws, and ICE officials don't take coffee breaks there. Not happening.

Whether it's a 3 story row home on the south side of Chicago or a posh, $3k a month apartment in DC, the owner pays the property taxes. For the 18th time, public education funding is messed up. Illegal immigration makes it that much more messed up and that's why you see school districts in big metro areas crying for more money every day. Their ratio of homeowners to renters is upside down and that is the cause of the financial strain.

My apologies on the race part. I mixed up your post and Cack's.

 

[GATTACA!]

Oh they surely are related. If we have fewer people we need less workers without a doubt. There's no justification for importing millions more because our birth rate is declining.

Fewer people equals less domestic workers. Yes there is a justification. Two illegal immigrants having a kid in the US creates a new citizen. Unless you want to turn into Japan now or China in a few decades you should be very concerned about our birth rate.

Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, I never said anything about kicking out all the illegal immigrants.

I never said you did. I was presenting a hypothetical.

Please address the point about illegals being subsidized outside of healthcare.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Your logic is faulty if you think illegal immigrants are avoiding ER's because of law enforcement. The local cops don't care and don't enforce immigration laws, and ICE officials don't take coffee breaks there. Not happening.

Whether it's a 3 story row home on the south side of Chicago or a posh, $3k a month apartment in DC, the owner pays the property taxes. For the 18th time, public education funding is messed up. Illegal immigration makes it that much more messed up and that's why you see school districts in big metro areas crying for more money every day. Their ratio of homeowners to renters is upside down and that is the cause of the financial strain.

My apologies on the race part. I mixed up your post and Cack's.

I should have added to this @TorontoGold: let's assume every renter (whether it's 1 kid or 4 kids) is paying or at least contributing to the property taxes. That should equate to millions more in tax revenues for the large city school districts like Philly, NYC, and Boston but that is NEVER the case. You're in Canada and I don't expect you to hear much about this, but you won't ever see a city school district in the US ever say they're properly funded or have plenty of money. It's always the big cities crying and begging for more money.

If they have significantly more students and taxpayers, how can that scenario possibly be? It's because the taxes on an apartment (or a duplex or row home with multiple families living in multiple units) don't come close to what it costs for the school district to educate the child. This creates a huge imbalance on the financials.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Fewer people equals less domestic workers. Yes there is a justification. Two illegal immigrants having a kid in the US creates a new citizen. Unless you want to turn into Japan now or China in a few decades you should be very concerned about our birth rate.

I never said you did. I was presenting a hypothetical.

Please address the point about illegals being subsidized outside of healthcare.

The two illegal immigrants are getting subsidized healthcare. If they brought their child with them, that's three and the educational costs. If the two had the child here in the US, that's one citizen. Either way the US is then responsible for subsidizing two illegals to get one US citizen. Sounds imbalanced to me.

I'll go back to what I posted several weeks ago: no country on earth would take 73,000 Americans (low skills, minimal education level) who needed subsidized housing, food, healthcare, education, and job training. Not one.

 

[TorontoGold]

I should have added to this @TorontoGold: let's assume every renter (whether it's 1 kid or 4 kids) is paying or at least contributing to the property taxes. That should equate to millions more in tax revenues for the large city school districts like Philly, NYC, and Boston but that is NEVER the case. You're in Canada and I don't expect you to hear much about this, but you won't ever see a city school district in the US ever say they're properly funded or have plenty of money. It's always the big cities crying and begging for more money.

If they have significantly more students and taxpayers, how can that scenario possibly be? It's because the taxes on an apartment (or a duplex or row home with multiple families living in multiple units) don't come close to what it costs for the school district to educate the child. This creates a huge imbalance on the financials.

Funding per student in NYC provided by the local government - $17,917 from the city/property taxes More Money, Little Accountability

Funding per student in Gary provided by the local government - $2,843 (22.9% of total expenditures per student - go to midway through the link) https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/indiana/districts/gary-community-school-corp-110116

So, NYC is spending more on students by a large magnitude (whether that spending is well spent or not is another discussion), but it doesn't exactly line up with the thinking that the large imbalances are caused because the property taxes aren't covering it. If anything, the large cities are subsidizing the smaller districts from their funding (as Wild Bill pointed out).

Of course I'm open to seeing data that would support your position.

 

[irishog77]

I should have added to this @TorontoGold: let's assume every renter (whether it's 1 kid or 4 kids) is paying or at least contributing to the property taxes. That should equate to millions more in tax revenues for the large city school districts like Philly, NYC, and Boston but that is NEVER the case. You're in Canada and I don't expect you to hear much about this, but you won't ever see a city school district in the US ever say they're properly funded or have plenty of money. It's always the big cities crying and begging for more money.

If they have significantly more students and taxpayers, how can that scenario possibly be? It's because the taxes on an apartment (or a duplex or row home with multiple families living in multiple units) don't come close to what it costs for the school district to educate the child. This creates a huge imbalance on the financials.

Leppy, love ya bud, and I agree with you and/or your politics on most of what you post, but I finally have to chime in.

Unfortunately, I think you're just wrong or don't quite understand how renting/owning works in regards to education. If a person owns a house, they pay property taxes. The amount of children that do or do not live there is irrelevant. A certain portion of that tax goes to the schools. If you rent a house, the owner of the house pays those same property taxes, regardless of how many children the owner has, or how many children live in the rental house, and a certain percentage of those taxes go to education (and Fire Protection, Debt, General Services, General Fund, etc.). The owner of the rental house uses the rent money to pay the property taxes.

Sure, each state (and even city) is a little different in regards to what the state pays as well for education, and what they receive from the federal government, but the basic premise of a portion of the property taxes are used to fund local education holds true basically throughout the nation. That funding isn't changed by somebody renting or owning. It is essentially, irrelevant.

I own multiple properties (as I'm sure others on here do) and I have zero children in public schools. As far as the assessment on the properties and the trustee (or whatever each municipality calls the person sending you your bill, collecting it, and updating the tax status) goes, nobody has any idea how many children I have, or wether or not I utilize the public schools. It's really as simple as the owner of a property has their property assessed, a bill is sent (or incorporated into your escrow account on a mortgage), and either the bank or the individual pays the tax. Then whatever portion is distributed for the school district. As far as taxes go, it's actually a pretty unemotional and straightforward transaction.

If you want to debate the efficacy of the education system, or the motivation, the success, and use of the education system, I'll probably agree with you, but those are entirely different conversations. Owning or renting a house really has no (or almost no) bearing on the funding for education. Immigration, legal or illegal, really has no bearing on funding for education in that regard. You could possibly argue the growing need for ESL teachers or Spanish-speaking teachers may cause somewhat of a drain, but then again, that is largely self funded by the individual districts. If districts are mismanaging their money, then that again is another argument entirely from wether or not owners or renters are paying for their kids' education. The real answer is that owners and renters are both paying for education.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Funding per student in NYC provided by the local government - $17,917 from the city/property taxes More Money, Little Accountability

Funding per student in Gary provided by the local government - $2,843 (22.9% of total expenditures per student - go to midway through the link) https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/indiana/districts/gary-community-school-corp-110116

So, NYC is spending more on students by a large magnitude (whether that spending is well spent or not is another discussion), but it doesn't exactly line up with the thinking that the large imbalances are caused because the property taxes aren't covering it. If anything, the large cities are subsidizing the smaller districts from their funding (as Wild Bill pointed out).

Of course I'm open to seeing data that would support your position.

Appreciate your research considering you're in Canada. Regardless of the city or town, I don't think the dollar per student is to be debated. It would be crazy to think that Gary, IN has the same tax base as NYC does. The budget for Ohama's school district shouldn't be close to what Houston's is either. The gap comes from the percentage of the tax base that is renting vs owning.

In regards to the point about large cities subsidizing smaller districts, that's not realistic. Every US school district operates their own budget, with the majority of those funds coming from local taxes and a small percentage coming from the state. I can promise you with 100% certainty that the school district of Los Angeles is not subsidizing the school district of Beverly Hills. From 3000 miles away I can also promise you that the LA school district is now and has been begging the state and feds for more money for decades, and Beverly Hills hasn't.

Surely, LA school district has a much larger population, larger tax base, and more students. You have to ask yourself why they are so financially strained and under funded while Beverly Hills is comfortable.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Leppy, love ya bud, and I agree with you and/or your politics on most of what you post, but I finally have to chime in.

Unfortunately, I think you're just wrong or don't quite understand how renting/owning works in regards to education. If a person owns a house, they pay property taxes. The amount of children that do or do not live there is irrelevant. A certain portion of that tax goes to the schools. If you rent a house, the owner of the house pays those same property taxes, regardless of how many children the owner has, or how many children live in the rental house, and a certain percentage of those taxes go to education (and Fire Protection, Debt, General Services, General Fund, etc.). The owner of the rental house uses the rent money to pay the property taxes.

Sure, each state (and even city) is a little different in regards to what the state pays as well for education, and what they receive from the federal government, but the basic premise of a portion of the property taxes are used to fund local education holds true basically throughout the nation. That funding isn't changed by somebody renting or owning. It is essentially, irrelevant.

I own multiple properties (as I'm sure others on here do) and I have zero children in public schools. As far as the assessment on the properties and the trustee (or whatever each municipality calls the person sending you your bill, collecting it, and updating the tax status) goes, nobody has any idea how many children I have, or wether or not I utilize the public schools. It's really as simple as the owner of a property has their property assessed, a bill is sent (or incorporated into your escrow account on a mortgage), and either the bank or the individual pays the tax. Then whatever portion is distributed for the school district. As far as taxes go, it's actually a pretty unemotional and straightforward transaction.

If you want to debate the efficacy of the education system, or the motivation, the success, and use of the education system, I'll probably agree with you, but those are entirely different conversations. Owning or renting a house really has no (or almost no) bearing on the funding for education. Immigration, legal or illegal, really has no bearing on funding for education in that regard. You could possibly argue the growing need for ESL teachers or Spanish-speaking teachers may cause somewhat of a drain, but then again, that is largely self funded by the individual districts. If districts are mismanaging their money, then that again is another argument entirely from wether or not owners or renters are paying for their kids' education. The real answer is that owners and renters are both paying for education.

I appreciate your insight given that you have multiple properties.

1) Yes, the mechanism for funding public education in the US is messed up. It doesn't make any sense until you hit post high school. Illegal immigration compounds this problem.

2) I acknowledge that whether it's a house or apartment, property taxes are being paid.

3) We're gonna have to agree to disagree on your last paragraph. I didn't even mention what you did in terms of extra resources needed at large, inner city schools but that's part of it too. The model for public education funding was based on property taxes. A 2500 square foot home is going to bring in more tax revenue than a 1200 square foot apartment. If a school district has a larger percentage of apartment living citizens than homeowners but are heavily populated, they're going to have a higher number of kids to educate with fewer funds to do it.

4) Even if you remove the tax part of this equation, wouldn't it be fair to ask why big city school districts are constantly begging for more money while most suburban/ small town districts aren't? What's causing the gap? Why do they pay teachers lower than suburban schools? Big city schools serving up ribeyes and lobster for lunch? Building a new high school? Nah, it's the numbers.

 

[TorontoGold]

Appreciate your research considering you're in Canada. Regardless of the city or town, I don't think the dollar per student is to be debated. It would be crazy to think that Gary, IN has the same tax base as NYC does. The budget for Ohama's school district shouldn't be close to what Houston's is either. The gap comes from the percentage of the tax base that is renting vs owning.

In regards to the point about large cities subsidizing smaller districts, that's not realistic. Every US school district operates their own budget, with the majority of those funds coming from local taxes and a small percentage coming from the state. I can promise you with 100% certainty that the school district of Los Angeles is not subsidizing the school district of Beverly Hills. From 3000 miles away I can also promise you that the LA school district is now and has been begging the state and feds for more money for decades, and Beverly Hills hasn't.

Surely, LA school district has a much larger population, larger tax base, and more students. You have to ask yourself why they are so financially strained and under funded while Beverly Hills is comfortable.

Property taxes are pretty much the same up here as they are down there. The point in the per $ student thing was that given the 67% split in renters vs owners (New York City Renters Statistics and Trends) that they are still able to generate enough in $$$ to spend a good amount on the students. This is of course separate from the actual value generated from those $$$, which likely means that Gary is receiving 10% of the education value that NYC is.

I don't know where to find the LA County vs Beverly Hills data would be found to refute or agree with your point. I mean, misallocation of funds to the more "desirable" areas is more of a corruption thing than a political/immigration issue IMO.

My main point which I was making - illegal immigrants largely pay for their education through the rent they are paying on their residences, evidenced by the high cost per student shown in metro areas that have a higher percentage of renters than in the suburbs.

 

[irishog77]

I appreciate your insight given that you have multiple properties.

1) Yes, the mechanism for funding public education in the US is messed up. It doesn't make any sense until you hit post high school. Illegal immigration compounds this problem.

2) I acknowledge that whether it's a house or apartment, property taxes are being paid.

3) We're gonna have to agree to disagree on your last paragraph. I didn't even mention what you did in terms of extra resources needed at large, inner city schools but that's part of it too. The model for public education funding was based on property taxes. A 2500 square foot home is going to bring in more tax revenue than a 1200 square foot apartment. If a school district has a larger percentage of apartment living citizens than homeowners but are heavily populated, they're going to have a higher number of kids to educate with fewer funds to do it.

4) Even if you remove the tax part of this equation, wouldn't it be fair to ask why big city school districts are constantly begging for more money while most suburban/ small town districts aren't? What's causing the gap? Why do they pay teachers lower than suburban schools? Big city schools serving up ribeyes and lobster for lunch? Building a new high school? Nah, it's the numbers.

Re: #3 Yes, you have a point in that higher valued properties are taxed at a higher rate. But then you have less properties overall (they're bigger structures to begin with and that inevitably also means larger acreage) in those areas, compared to more urban or densely populated areas. For instance, a 10 acre plot of land in the burbs may have 15 houses on it. For argument's sake, let's say therapy $5,000 a pop in property taxes. That's $75,000 in property taxes. But in a more urban area, that 10 acres of land hay have 100 dwellings. Let's say the taxes on those properties are $1,500 a pop. That's $150,000 in property taxes. (And I'll be honest, I think I used very rough numbers that favor your argument more so than mine). So the renters, in that scenario, have doubled the taxes. So they definitely don't have fewer funds. Yes, I'll give you that they have more students to educate (and that obviously costs more money), but cities, counties, and states regulate that to "even it out," so to speak, by increasing and decreasing zones and whatnot. But I imagine each municipality is different. I literally paid the taxes on a property yesterday. I owed $2,194.00 on it. But the trustee's bill came with a breakdown of where each dollar goes. $664.81 go to "Schools General Purpose" fund, and $76.86 went to the "School Debt Service" fund. That's it for schools. The rest is earmarked for other funds. Do I know if that is an appropriate percentage going to schools? No, I have no clue if it should truly be more or less. But that's what our city set up. And the city works with the state, earmarks money for each student statewide, then works with specific counties and schools above and beyond that. Again, wether the person living in the house owns it or rents it is almost completely irrelevant.

I live in a big city. Yet many of the immigrants are living...in the suburbs and not in the city. Why? Because it's a lot cheaper. The city I live in has become expensive to live in, so people with less money are having a harder time being able to buy and pay for houses here. My city generates a whole lot more in property taxes than the suburbs do, but yet the suburbs have better schools, even with the immigrants, who are, by and large, are still renting.

This is what Toronto, and I in my prior post, were alluding to earlier, and to which you were alluding to in #4. Yes, our school system is mostly shitty for a myriad of reasons. But those are different matters entirely. Waste is prevalent, parental involvement fluctuates, grift occurs, cities pass the buck to the state, who in turn passes the buck to the federal government, etc., etc. Our schools aren't shitty because immigrants mostly rent their houses, versus owning them, though.

 

[Irish#1]

Many of the illegal immigrant families share residences. My wife worked for a company that had a lot of Latino's working in the warehouse. Since she handled payroll, she had to get them set up. She said it wasn't uncommon for a group of them to give her the same address. They acknowledged several families would share a house to save on the rent. She was also given fake ID's by some. I may be off, but I think Leppy is saying that while property taxes are paid, when they share residences, the property tax doesn't match what the hit is.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Many of the illegal immigrant families share residences. My wife worked for a company that had a lot of Latino's working in the warehouse. Since she handled payroll, she had to get them set up. She said it wasn't uncommon for a group of them to give her the same address. They acknowledged several families would share a house to save on the rent. She was also given fake ID's by some. I may be off, but I think Leppy is saying that while property taxes are paid, when they share residences, the property tax doesn't match what the hit is.

I didn't bring this up but it's accurate. @TorontoGold @irishog77 I can only speak to the area I know best which is where I am in the Philly suburbs. If I took you on a tour of Reading, PA or Allentown, PA I think you'd have a better understanding of what I'm referring to.

 

[GATTACA!]

Many of the illegal immigrant families share residences. My wife worked for a company that had a lot of Latino's working in the warehouse. Since she handled payroll, she had to get them set up. She said it wasn't uncommon for a group of them to give her the same address. They acknowledged several families would share a house to save on the rent. She was also given fake ID's by some. I may be off, but I think Leppy is saying that while property taxes are paid, when they share residences, the property tax doesn't match what the hit is.

There’s nothing illegal about that though. There’s nothing keeping you from having 2 other families live with you in your house, and if you did the property tax would be the same either way.

That’s what everyone else’s point is. This isn’t an illegal immigrant problem, this is an education system problem.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Property taxes are pretty much the same up here as they are down there. The point in the per $ student thing was that given the 67% split in renters vs owners (New York City Renters Statistics and Trends) that they are still able to generate enough in $$$ to spend a good amount on the students. This is of course separate from the actual value generated from those $$$, which likely means that Gary is receiving 10% of the education value that NYC is.

I don't know where to find the LA County vs Beverly Hills data would be found to refute or agree with your point. I mean, misallocation of funds to the more "desirable" areas is more of a corruption thing than a political/immigration issue IMO.

My main point which I was making - illegal immigrants largely pay for their education through the rent they are paying on their residences, evidenced by the high cost per student shown in metro areas that have a higher percentage of renters than in the suburbs.

There is no misallocation of funds because LA County isn't financially responsible for Beverly Hills SD and visa versa.

Illegal immigrants' rent taxes are being paid, but in big cities it isn't enough to cover the population. It's a reason, not the only reason, that NYC is about $4 billion in debt and the mayor has ordered budget cuts across the board. My guess is you could probably have the same story in Philly, LA, Chicago, etc.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

There’s nothing illegal about that though. There’s nothing keeping you from having 2 other families live with you in your house, and if you did the property tax would be the same either way.

That’s what everyone else’s point is. This isn’t an illegal immigrant problem, this is an education system problem.

It's an education system problem compounded by illegal immigration. Having 6-8 kids in one house puts the local school system upside down financially.

 

[Irish#1]

There’s nothing illegal about that though. There’s nothing keeping you from having 2 other families live with you in your house, and if you did the property tax would be the same either way.

That’s what everyone else’s point is. This isn’t an illegal immigrant problem, this is an education system problem.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Most cities have occupancy codes. A singe family dwelling is just that, a single family dwelling.

 

[Irish#1]

This company should get some severe punishment for this.

Company hired same child twice to clean slaughterhouses, internal document shows

An internal company report shows Packers Sanitation Services Inc. disciplined an employee who hired the same “known minor” twice under two different identities.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[TorontoGold]

There is no misallocation of funds because LA County isn't financially responsible for Beverly Hills SD and visa versa.

Illegal immigrants' rent taxes are being paid, but in big cities it isn't enough to cover the population. It's a reason, not the only reason, that NYC is about $4 billion in debt and the mayor has ordered budget cuts across the board. My guess is you could probably have the same story in Philly, LA, Chicago, etc.

Wouldn't we have seen a reverse of the education payment share then if that was the case? In the NYC vs Gary example, NYC was paying a proportionate share that was higher than what Gary was paying. If there was a funding issue, wouldn't the state/feds cover a higher percentage of the total education costs?

 

[GATTACA!]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Most cities have occupancy codes. A singe family dwelling is just that, a single family dwelling.

Fair point.

 

[Blazers46]

Many of the illegal immigrant families share residences. My wife worked for a company that had a lot of Latino's working in the warehouse. Since she handled payroll, she had to get them set up. She said it wasn't uncommon for a group of them to give her the same address. They acknowledged several families would share a house to save on the rent. She was also given fake ID's by some. I may be off, but I think Leppy is saying that while property taxes are paid, when they share residences, the property tax doesn't match what the hit is.

My brother in law used to be a “coyote” for his brother in law. He gave me the whole education on the fake IDs and putting them all in the same house. A 4 bedroom house could house 4-5 families depending on the living space and basement situation. He then made them all work for his construction/ landscape business or he would threaten to turn them in.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

My brother in law used to be a “coyote” for his brother in law. He gave me the whole education on the fake IDs and putting them all in the same house. A 4 bedroom house could house 4-5 families depending on the living space and basement situation. He then made them all work for his construction/ landscape business or he would threaten to turn them in.

He seems nice.

 

[GATTACA!]

He seems nice.

Hard working business owner I’d say.

 

[irishff1014]

Many of the illegal immigrant families share residences. My wife worked for a company that had a lot of Latino's working in the warehouse. Since she handled payroll, she had to get them set up. She said it wasn't uncommon for a group of them to give her the same address. They acknowledged several families would share a house to save on the rent. She was also given fake ID's by some. I may be off, but I think Leppy is saying that while property taxes are paid, when they share residences, the property tax doesn't match what the hit is.

I don’t work in pay roll but I do work in the Emergency Services field and this is 100% correct. We go to houses that are 3 bedroom ranchers with 10 people living in them and are 2 families.

Our mutual aid companies had an apartment building burn up last year it was crazy the amount of people that were living in there. It was like 7 2 or 3 room apartments with like 75 people. It was mostly Hispanics and Haitians.

 

[Armyirish47]

Hard working business owner I’d say.

Side note, house was entirely constructed of bootstraps.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Wouldn't we have seen a reverse of the education payment share then if that was the case? In the NYC vs Gary example, NYC was paying a proportionate share that was higher than what Gary was paying. If there was a funding issue, wouldn't the state/feds cover a higher percentage of the total education costs?

The feds provide very, very little funding to the states and local schools. The state usually provides some support but to what degree is up to each state and that can get complicated really fast.

For example, the school district of LA could ask the governor for more money. Governor could appease and say here's another $30 million. Or the governor could say this is a Los Angeles problem, you all have a mayor and a city council, go handle your own business and finances.

 

[PerthDomer]

3k a month is brutal. I'll bet a month's salary that illegal immigrants aren't living in an apartment anywhere close to 3k a month.

In the Bay you likely have a bunch of visa overstays renting above that.

 

[PerthDomer]

Leppy, love ya bud, and I agree with you and/or your politics on most of what you post, but I finally have to chime in.

Unfortunately, I think you're just wrong or don't quite understand how renting/owning works in regards to education. If a person owns a house, they pay property taxes. The amount of children that do or do not live there is irrelevant. A certain portion of that tax goes to the schools. If you rent a house, the owner of the house pays those same property taxes, regardless of how many children the owner has, or how many children live in the rental house, and a certain percentage of those taxes go to education (and Fire Protection, Debt, General Services, General Fund, etc.). The owner of the rental house uses the rent money to pay the property taxes.

Sure, each state (and even city) is a little different in regards to what the state pays as well for education, and what they receive from the federal government, but the basic premise of a portion of the property taxes are used to fund local education holds true basically throughout the nation. That funding isn't changed by somebody renting or owning. It is essentially, irrelevant.

I own multiple properties (as I'm sure others on here do) and I have zero children in public schools. As far as the assessment on the properties and the trustee (or whatever each municipality calls the person sending you your bill, collecting it, and updating the tax status) goes, nobody has any idea how many children I have, or wether or not I utilize the public schools. It's really as simple as the owner of a property has their property assessed, a bill is sent (or incorporated into your escrow account on a mortgage), and either the bank or the individual pays the tax. Then whatever portion is distributed for the school district. As far as taxes go, it's actually a pretty unemotional and straightforward transaction.

If you want to debate the efficacy of the education system, or the motivation, the success, and use of the education system, I'll probably agree with you, but those are entirely different conversations. Owning or renting a house really has no (or almost no) bearing on the funding for education. Immigration, legal or illegal, really has no bearing on funding for education in that regard. You could possibly argue the growing need for ESL teachers or Spanish-speaking teachers may cause somewhat of a drain, but then again, that is largely self funded by the individual districts. If districts are mismanaging their money, then that again is another argument entirely from wether or not owners or renters are paying for their kids' education. The real answer is that owners and renters are both paying for education.

Don't conservatives usually argue the business component of SS taxes/Corporate Taxes actually come from the worker because the business just nabs it from their pay? My apartment complex has the money to pay taxes and make a profit because they have tenants. Without tenants your rental income would go down and you'd go bust.

 

[irishog77]

Don't conservatives usually argue the business component of SS taxes/Corporate Taxes actually come from the worker because the business just nabs it from their pay? My apartment complex has the money to pay taxes and make a profit because they have tenants. Without tenants your rental income would go down and you'd go bust.

Not really following you here.

Yes, housing, as a business, follows the same map as other businesses- the owner risks and offers a product, and if the market demands a desire, want, or need for the product, people will buy the product.

I tend to believe business taxes, in any form, tend to be passed on to the consumer, rather than worker. In the housing business, taxes and fees are passed on to the consumer- the buyer or renter. I hate it when people (particularly those actually in the real estate business) argue that the seller of a property pay the closing fees. No, the seller simply raises their selling price by 6-10% (4-6% for realtor commissions, 2-4% for title and bank services). It's very much akin to pissing on me...and then telling me it is raining. It's the main reason people try to do cash and/or private transactions.

If your post is trying to get at the fact that immigrants, who happen to rent their homes, do, indeed, pay for education, then I am in agreement. My 2 previous posts demonstrate that.

 

[PerthDomer]

Not really following you here.

Yes, housing, as a business, follows the same map as other businesses- the owner risks and offers a product, and if the market demands a desire, want, or need for the product, people will buy the product.

I tend to believe business taxes, in any form, tend to be passed on to the consumer, rather than worker. In the housing business, taxes and fees are passed on to the consumer- the buyer or renter. I hate it when people (particularly those actually in the real estate business) argue that the seller of a property pay the closing fees. No, the seller simply raises their selling price by 6-10% (4-6% for realtor commissions, 2-4% for title and bank services). It's very much akin to pissing on me...and then telling me it is raining. It's the main reason people try to do cash and/or private transactions.

If your post is trying to get at the fact that immigrants, who happen to rent their homes, do, indeed, pay for education, then I am in agreement. My 2 previous posts demonstrate that.

I may have hit reply to the wrong poster, but generally agree. It demands on monopoly power, demand/supply elasticity, etc. As well.

 

[Irish#1]

Crazy story. Hopefully they can figure this out.

He deported thousands of people, then learned he was undocumented | CNN

Raul Rodriguez spent years helping the US enforce its immigration laws at the border. Then he learned his life was built on a lie.

www.cnn.com