SCOTUS Rules Against Trump Administration IEEPA Tariffs

[Reagan]

 

 

[TheMissingBand]

9 hours ago, OlDawg said:

12 hours ago, OlDawg said:

 

The Feds maintaining a higher interest rate than needed are also affecting the slower pace of disinflation. The Fed is slowing down the drop on purpose. They want to ease into 2%. Not crash.

 

When the Feds kept raising rates, and the extra money people received ran out, they had to pull back some. That helped cool inflation as well.

Where’ve you been, sir? Excellent analysis. I think the higher interest rates are keeping inflation lower, the two point reduction in the fed rate that trump is demanding with add multiple points to the inflation rate, in my estimation.  
 

It’s all relevant. Two point drop in mortgages and the housing market will take off like we haven’t seen in years. Demand will far exceed supply and prices will soar, etc… he wants the lower interest rates so that our debt payments will decrease and continuing to borrow at the federal level won’t sting so badly. But it’ll be a really rough time for those of us already struggling with high prices.  
 

I’m not a tinfoil hat kind of person, but I’m starting to wonder if these poor fiscal policies aren’t merely mismanagement, but instead pushing us towards an alternative to the dollar that his family keeps pushing. 

[OlDawg]

Good summary article on the current state of personal finances. The actual numbers may surprise many.

(Hint: Personal debt to income is at its lowest level since the 90’s.)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Well done to those who are finally becoming more financially responsible. This is the real key to personal freedom.
 

[TheMissingBand]

55 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Good summary article on the current state of personal finances. The actual numbers may surprise many.

(Hint: Personal debt to income is at its lowest level since the 90’s.)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Well done to those who are finally becoming more financially responsible. This is the real key to personal freedom.
 

I have a friend that’s in management at one of the largest local credit unions. I asked her what they’d do if Trump’s plan to limit interest rates to 10% was to actually be implemented. She said that they’d still extend credit, but only to customers who deserved a 10% interest rate, dramatically limiting the credit extended to risky borrowers… typically the ones who rely upon credit the most.  
 

To your point, the proposed cap on credit card interest rates could also push the debt to income rate to even lower lows, lol. 
 

I think that it can be seen from other perspectives, too. Higher mortgage rates are keeping a lot of people in their current homes/mortgages because the cost to finance a new property is keeping them in their old home. If you’re in a 200k mortgage financed at 2.75, but the next logical upgrade is to a 350k mortgage, but at 6.00, you’re probably not going to upgrade.  You could have afforded that $350k mortgage at 2.75, but not at 6.0-so they stay put. Trump’s demand to scrub 2 points off of the fed rate (and assuming there’d be a corresponding drop in mortgage rates) would move a lot of people to upgrade, but with resulting inflation that would drive prices up further.  The uncomfortable truth is that low mortgage rates (too low, probably) caused problems in the system that were just now beginning to understand.

Same story with vehicle debt. Tariffs cause higher prices, and high interest rates discourage purchases… end result is a lower DTI.  It’s a win, I guess.  The fact that mortgage delinquencies and auto loan defaults are rising is a much better indication of where we stand financially. 

[Big girl]

On 2/20/2026 at 3:19 PM, baddog said:

Hypocrites…..

Google search:

 

President Biden maintained most of the trade tariffs on Chinese goods initiated during the Trump administration, even increasing duties on items like electric vehicles and semiconductors

. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi previously advocated for using tariffs to counter China's market influence, despite criticizing specific, broader tariff implementations. 

Representative Nancy Pelosi | (.gov) +3

Key Details on Tariff Policies

• Biden Administration: President Biden left many of the 2018-2019 China tariffs in place to protect U.S. industries and address unfair trade practices. His administration further increased duties on, among other things, solar cells, aluminum, steel, and, most notably, quadrupled tariffs on electric vehicles.
• Nancy Pelosi: While Pelosi criticized the Trump administration's "chaotic" approach to tariffs as a "self-inflicted disaster" that harmed consumers, she previously supported targeted, "smart" tariffs to address unfair trade practices, particularly regarding China.
• Contextual Shift: Critics and observers noted that some Democrats, including Pelosi, historically advocated for reciprocal trade measures against China, which mirrors the protectionist rhetoric later heavily utilized by the Trump administration. 
  Facebook +6

While Biden and Pelosi often criticized the methods of the previous administration's trade policy, they did not remove the majority of the protective trade barriers

Tarriffs were always in place. Trump attempted to increase the percentage that other countries paid.

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, TheMissingBand said:

I have a friend that’s in management at one of the largest local credit unions. I asked her what they’d do if Trump’s plan to limit interest rates to 10% was to actually be implemented. She said that they’d still extend credit, but only to customers who deserved a 10% interest rate, dramatically limiting the credit extended to risky borrowers… typically the ones who rely upon credit the most.  
 

To your point, the proposed cap on credit card interest rates could also push the debt to income rate to even lower lows, lol. 
 

I think that it can be seen from other perspectives, too. Higher mortgage rates are keeping a lot of people in their current homes/mortgages because the cost to finance a new property is keeping them in their old home. If you’re in a 200k mortgage financed at 2.75, but the next logical upgrade is to a 350k mortgage, but at 6.00, you’re probably not going to upgrade.  You could have afforded that $350k mortgage at 2.75, but not at 6.0-so they stay put. Trump’s demand to scrub 2 points off of the fed rate (and assuming there’d be a corresponding drop in mortgage rates) would move a lot of people to upgrade, but with resulting inflation that would drive prices up further.  The uncomfortable truth is that low mortgage rates (too low, probably) caused problems in the system that were just now beginning to understand.

Same story with vehicle debt. Tariffs cause higher prices, and high interest rates discourage purchases… end result is a lower DTI.  It’s a win, I guess.  The fact that mortgage delinquencies and auto loan defaults are rising is a much better indication of where we stand financially. 

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No.

This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration.

We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices.

While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job.

The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

[TheMissingBand]

15 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No.

This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration.

We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices.

While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job.

The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

I’m just surprised at all of the supposed “free market, conservative” people who don’t a problem with all of the things you just described. 

[OlDawg]

1 minute ago, TheMissingBand said:

I’m just surprised at all of the supposed “free market, conservative” people who don’t a problem with all of the things you just described. 

I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. There's actually a pretty big difference in that and typical conservatism. Typical conservatives still believe in some market manipulation to help achieve their social goals. Liberals and Progressives are at the total opposite end of the spectrum from me from a fiscal and personal liberty stance.

[TheMissingBand]

3 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. There's actually a pretty big difference in that and typical conservatism. Typical conservatives still believe in some market manipulation to help achieve their social goals. Liberals and Progressives are at the total opposite end of the spectrum from me from a fiscal and personal liberty stance.

Same… I’ve always been conservative fiscally and socially, but feel myself recognizing more from the “other people” these days. 
 

Today “fiscally conservative” means “cut taxes and end regulation, that’ll fix everything” when it’s the not the answer. Even the successes that they point to are more like cautionary tales. 
 

There are some things that I can actually agree on from a liberal/progressive standpoint. Same-sex marriage, for one. If my wife (or I) die suddenly, there are rules for the disposition of our estate that protect the surviving spouse. Same with medical or end of life decisions. It doesn’t matter how long a same-sex couple has been together, until gay marriage was legalized, the significant other had no say in anything… that’s not right, when the only thing that would prohibit such unions were the religious beliefs of others. 
 

I’ve heard it said, but it’s true. We’re not a Christian nation, where a nation where we’re free to be a Christian. Or not. Or a Muslim, Hindu, etc… conservatives today don’t understand that basic fact of our constitution. 

[OlDawg]

11 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Same… I’ve always been conservative fiscally and socially, but feel myself recognizing more from the “other people” these days. 
 

Today “fiscally conservative” means “cut taxes and end regulation, that’ll fix everything” when it’s the not the answer. Even the successes that they point to are more like cautionary tales. 
 

There are some things that I can actually agree on from a liberal/progressive standpoint. Same-sex marriage, for one. If my wife (or I) die suddenly, there are rules for the disposition of our estate that protect the surviving spouse. Same with medical or end of life decisions. It doesn’t matter how long a same-sex couple has been together, until gay marriage was legalized, the significant other had no say in anything… that’s not right, when the only thing that would prohibit such unions were the religious beliefs of others. 
 

I’ve heard it said, but it’s true. We’re not a Christian nation, where a nation where we’re free to be a Christian. Or not. Or a Muslim, Hindu, etc… conservatives today don’t understand that basic fact of our constitution. 

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The government shouldn't be involved in the abortion or not business. If what someone does in their own home--or daily activities--does no harm to others, it's none of my business.

The government wouldn't be involved if we hadn't invited them in.

[TheMissingBand]

1 minute ago, OlDawg said:

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The government shouldn't be involved in the abortion or not business.

Up to a point. 
 

I think abortion is wrong, but that’s based on my religious beliefs. Whether or not you have one should be between you and your creator, IMO.  
 

BUT, the problem comes in when a person can’t afford one.  Should we then collectively be responsible to pay for a procedure that we believe to be immoral? That’s where the argument lost me. If the right have one means that the rest of us should foot the bill for anybody else getting one, then I’m out. 
 

And I’d love to hear your opinion on the movement to abolish all property taxes in Texas?

[OlDawg]

15 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Up to a point. 
 

I think abortion is wrong, but that’s based on my religious beliefs. Whether or not you have one should be between you and your creator, IMO.  
 

BUT, the problem comes in when a person can’t afford one.  Should we then collectively be responsible to pay for a procedure that we believe to be immoral? That’s where the argument lost me. If the right have one means that the rest of us should foot the bill for anybody else getting one, then I’m out. 
 

And I’d love to hear your opinion on the movement to abolish all property taxes in Texas?

I may think abortion on demand is wrong. But, it's not my place to interject in someone else's very personal matter. If the government wasn't so deeply involved in healthcare, your moral dilemma wouldn't be an issue. The answer isn't to fight the moral question. The answer is to minimize/eliminate government involvement in healthcare.

Property taxes in Texas is an interesting question. I am more of a flat tax person vs. a consumption tax person. To me, a consumption tax stymies growth more than a flat tax. That being said, I'd prefer a flat tax (Federal) with property taxes. But, I would maintain a maximum level of property tax increase/year--with no loopholes--and have the tax rate of property be set by the insurable value after yearly appraisals. Not the other way around. The value of one's property should only be worth what it can be insured for in case of total loss.

[TheMissingBand]

41 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I may think abortion on demand is wrong. But, it's not my place to interject in someone else's very personal matter. If the government wasn't so deeply involved in healthcare, your moral dilemma wouldn't be an issue. The answer isn't to fight the moral question. The answer is to minimize/eliminate government involvement in healthcare.

Property taxes in Texas is an interesting question. I am more of a flat tax person vs. a consumption tax person. To me, a consumption tax stymies growth more than a flat tax. That being said, I'd prefer a flat tax (Federal) with property taxes. But, I would maintain a maximum level of property tax increase/year--with no loopholes--and have the tax rate of property be set by the insurable value after yearly appraisals. Not the other way around. The value of one's property should only be worth what it can be insured for in case of total loss.

I think you’re on point with the property tax issue. Consumption taxes are regressive. They hit people with lower incomes/and property values much harder than those with more property value. The only discrepancy with your insurable value scenario is that I don’t see how it will work with homes on larger acreage tracts. It costs the same amount to insure a house on a half acre as it does to insure one on a hundred acres. Also, the value of homes in restricted neighborhoods is significantly different than one down a dirt road. Same age, same size, completely different market value, but the same cost to insure. But the idea isn’t a bad one, just need to tweak it, but you’re on point. 
 

My gripe is that the CADs were set up to make sure that taxes were as fair and equitable as possible. But imagine a scenario where there are four $250k homes in a row on a street in Lumberton. The first one pays $0, the next $500, the next $2000, and the last pays $4500 per year. Is that fair and equitable? Not hardly. The first one is a disabled veteran, the next is owned by an elderly couple in their seventies whose taxes were frozen ten years ago. The third is owned by a young family with a homestead exemption, and the last is also owned by a young couple the same age, but they bought a new home to live in elsewhere and are trying their hand at rental property with this one, so no exemption here. Still fair? I mean, that’s the law, but it doesn’t seem very fair or equitable.  Then you hear that one of the ideas in Austin is to eliminate property taxes on any property that has a homestead.  Now houses one, two, and three will pay nothing and the young couple that own the fourth home will have to pay $7000 per year to cover the revenue lost by the elimination of taxes on homesteads. Of course that’s going to pass the costs on to their renters. It’s no secret why rents seem extraordinarily high… the property tax relief giveaways that the legislature keeps passing off to homesteads are landing squarely on any type of property which doesn’t have a homestead exemption. 
 

There aren’t any easy answers, but the idea of just scrapping it all and tacking an extra 7 percent on all of the goods and services that you buy will absolutely hurt people and the economy in Texas. 

[Reagan]

8 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

I think you’re on point with the property tax issue. Consumption taxes are regressive. They hit people with lower incomes/and property values much harder than those with more property value. The only discrepancy with your insurable value scenario is that I don’t see how it will work with homes on larger acreage tracts. It costs the same amount to insure a house on a half acre as it does to insure one on a hundred acres. Also, the value of homes in restricted neighborhoods is significantly different than one down a dirt road. Same age, same size, completely different market value, but the same cost to insure. But the idea isn’t a bad one, just need to tweak it, but you’re on point. 
 

My gripe is that the CADs were set up to make sure that taxes were as fair and equitable as possible. But imagine a scenario where there are four $250k homes in a row on a street in Lumberton. The first one pays $0, the next $500, the next $2000, and the last pays $4500 per year. Is that fair and equitable? Not hardly. The first one is a disabled veteran, the next is owned by an elderly couple in their seventies whose taxes were frozen ten years ago. The third is owned by a young family with a homestead exemption, and the last is also owned by a young couple the same age, but they bought a new home to live in elsewhere and are trying their hand at rental property with this one, so no exemption here. Still fair? I mean, that’s the law, but it doesn’t seem very fair or equitable.  Then you hear that one of the ideas in Austin is to eliminate property taxes on any property that has a homestead.  Now houses one, two, and three will pay nothing and the young couple that own the fourth home will have to pay $7000 per year to cover the revenue lost by the elimination of taxes on homesteads. Of course that’s going to pass the costs on to their renters. It’s no secret why rents seem extraordinarily high… the property tax relief giveaways that the legislature keeps passing off to homesteads are landing squarely on any type of property which doesn’t have a homestead exemption. 
 

There aren’t any easy answers, but the idea of just scrapping it all and tacking an extra 7 percent on all of the goods and services that you buy will absolutely hurt people and the economy in Texas. 

The problem with CAD's now is they have become the source for the increased money supply.  Counties need more money, they tell CAD's to increase valuations (my opinion).  This let's the politicians off the hook.  They can point the finger at the CAD.  I really don't know this answer, but when was the the last time any city in the area increased taxes?  This hurts the elderly.  After 65 they are exempt from any future tax increases.  BUT -- they are not exempt from any evaluation increases.  Either way they are drained.  It's my opinion that any one over 65 should not have to at least pay school taxes.  You are having to pay for a benefit that you are no longer receiving.   

On the subject of overall property taxes.   Should the elderly, and anyone else, lose their home because they can't pay the taxes?  To me that's a problem.  BTW, it's my understanding that Florida is in the process of eliminating all property taxes.  Think we'd ever hear that coming from a Blue State?  

[TheMissingBand]

29 minutes ago, Reagan said:

The problem with CAD's now is they have become the source for the increased money supply.  Counties need more money, they tell CAD's to increase valuations (my opinion).  This let's the politicians off the hook.  They can point the finger at the CAD.  I really don't know this answer, but when was the the last time any city in the area increased taxes?  This hurts the elderly.  After 65 they are exempt from any future tax increases.  BUT -- they are not exempt from any evaluation increases.  Either way they are drained.  It's my opinion that any one over 65 should not have to at least pay school taxes.  You are having to pay for a benefit that you are no longer receiving.   

On the subject of overall property taxes.   Should the elderly, and anyone else, lose their home because they can't pay the taxes?  To me that's a problem.  BTW, it's my understanding that Florida is in the process of eliminating all property taxes.  Think we'd ever hear that coming from a Blue State?  

It might seem that way, but it’s not. It’s actually a criminal act for anyone to try and influence values, upwards or downwards… on a single property or on all of them. There’s a formal protest process for property owners to use, and anything other than that process isn’t permitted by law. 
 

There are limits to how much a taxing units other than schools can increase their taxes. Long story made short is that they’re only allowed to increase the total amount of taxes collected last year by 3.5 percent without triggering an election. So if everybody out there has an increase in value of 20% this year, their taxes won’t go up by 20%… the max that the total amount of taxes can grow is 3.5% across the board. Now, if everybody else’s value stays the same and yours doubles, you’re in trouble. There are lots of caveats, but that’s the basis of it. If your CAD doubles everybody’s values this year, it doesn’t mean your taxes will go up. In fact, almost every taxing unit out there has lower tax rates than they did ten years ago because of the growth in values. 
 

Here’s my thing. Old people get incredible breaks. If their value is less than $200k, they pay nothing for school taxes. I just checked my dad’s. His bill for 2025 was $795.  The bill would have been $4075 if there were no exemptions. Thats a hell of a break.  But if you were to ask him, he’s getting robbed. The problem is that everybody has a solution that results in them paying less, or none at all, and the costs being passed on to everyone else.  
 

To answer your question, the elderly and disabled can defer their taxes and it stops any collection efforts until the property no longer has a deferral in place.  No elderly (or even disabled people) should ever lose their home. But should people who aren’t elderly or disabled also not have to worry about paying their taxes? Well, we told people that they were entitled to healthcare whether chose to pay for it or not, and now our healthcare system is in ruins.  Simply put, tax auctions are a last resort when people refuse to pay their taxes. Should I pay mine if nobody else pays theirs? Tax sales aren’t about punishing someone for not paying theirs… it’s about putting that property in the hands of someone who’s willing to actually pay the taxes, and a reminder to everybody else that there are repercussions for not paying your taxes. 
 

The reason that the American experience is doomed to fail is the same reason it was created. People don’t want to pay taxes. Americans have realized that they can elect leaders who promise generous gifts from the treasury. Those gifts come in the form of direct payment (EBT, food stamps, housing, free health care, etc) or in the form of tax cuts that we quite simply can’t afford. Either way, we just head further down the road to ruin.   We can argue that no one should go hungry, healthcare is a human right, or old people shouldn’t have to pay taxes.  Either way, it’s all about making sure that we pay less, regardless of what effect it has on the survival of our communities or the nation. 

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, TheMissingBand said:

I think you’re on point with the property tax issue. Consumption taxes are regressive. They hit people with lower incomes/and property values much harder than those with more property value. The only discrepancy with your insurable value scenario is that I don’t see how it will work with homes on larger acreage tracts. It costs the same amount to insure a house on a half acre as it does to insure one on a hundred acres. Also, the value of homes in restricted neighborhoods is significantly different than one down a dirt road. Same age, same size, completely different market value, but the same cost to insure. But the idea isn’t a bad one, just need to tweak it, but you’re on point. 
 

My gripe is that the CADs were set up to make sure that taxes were as fair and equitable as possible. But imagine a scenario where there are four $250k homes in a row on a street in Lumberton. The first one pays $0, the next $500, the next $2000, and the last pays $4500 per year. Is that fair and equitable? Not hardly. The first one is a disabled veteran, the next is owned by an elderly couple in their seventies whose taxes were frozen ten years ago. The third is owned by a young family with a homestead exemption, and the last is also owned by a young couple the same age, but they bought a new home to live in elsewhere and are trying their hand at rental property with this one, so no exemption here. Still fair? I mean, that’s the law, but it doesn’t seem very fair or equitable.  Then you hear that one of the ideas in Austin is to eliminate property taxes on any property that has a homestead.  Now houses one, two, and three will pay nothing and the young couple that own the fourth home will have to pay $7000 per year to cover the revenue lost by the elimination of taxes on homesteads. Of course that’s going to pass the costs on to their renters. It’s no secret why rents seem extraordinarily high… the property tax relief giveaways that the legislature keeps passing off to homesteads are landing squarely on any type of property which doesn’t have a homestead exemption. 
 

There aren’t any easy answers, but the idea of just scrapping it all and tacking an extra 7 percent on all of the goods and services that you buy will absolutely hurt people and the economy in Texas. 

I'm not sure you understand my insurance value appraisal stance. In my scenario, the land is moot except for incidental value related to costs of rebuilding (ie. ease of access for reconstruction, utilities, etc.). The property value of the home would be based on rebuild costs that are already used for labor and material costs in any design/engineering/construction area. The estimated costs are area and regional specific. These costs typically include locational differences which would account for your developed vs not question. (You could also set a limit on acreage included with the improvement value on the property, and have anything greater be taxed at unimproved acreage levels in addition. This would address your larger lot concerns.)

The numbers used are what engineering/construction firms use when estimating project costs, and are basically industry standard numbers with slight deviations for special circumstances. They are also close to the numbers insurance companies use now for rebuild estimates. AI could make this very simple and efficient. So, relatively little extra expense for the insurance company to set a value, and keep it up-to-date yearly.

Instead of a CAD, improved property tax appraisals would be based on the cost of materials and labor to rebuild your structure/home to a replacement scenario at the market conditions based on the previous year's estimate. Unimproved property taxes would still be taxed as they are currently.

The way it is now is backwards. My home is almost 40 years old. It's nice, but not fancy. My appraisal is way more than what I can sell it. I've also had relatives in Dallas that were literally taxed and fee'd out of their homes (need a new roof, new paint job, any number of things) because the City wanted the older homes & residents with tax exemptions out. Then, they had developers buy, demolish, and rebuild new to resell where the City could increase it's tax base.

As a bonus to this change, you could downsize another government department. Always a plus. 😁

[TheMissingBand]

13 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I'm not sure you understand my insurance value appraisal stance. In my scenario, the land is moot except for incidental value related to costs of rebuilding (ie. ease of access for reconstruction, utilities, etc.). The property value of the home would be based on rebuild costs that are already used for labor and material costs in any design/engineering/construction area. The estimated costs are area and regional specific. These costs typically include locational differences which would account for your developed vs not question. (You could also set a limit on acreage included with the improvement value on the property, and have anything greater be taxed at unimproved acreage levels in addition. This would address your larger lot concerns.)

The numbers used are what engineering/construction firms use when estimating project costs, and are basically industry standard numbers with slight deviations for special circumstances. They are also close to the numbers insurance companies use now for rebuild estimates. AI could make this very simple and efficient. So, relatively little extra expense for the insurance company to set a value, and keep it up-to-date yearly.

Instead of a CAD, improved property tax appraisals would be based on the cost of materials and labor to rebuild your structure/home to a replacement scenario at the market conditions based on the previous year's estimate. Unimproved property taxes would still be taxed as they are currently.

The way it is now is backwards. My home is almost 40 years old. It's nice, but not fancy. My appraisal is way more than what I can sell it. I've also had relatives in Dallas that were literally taxed and fee'd out of their homes (need a new roof, new paint job, any number of things) because the City wanted the older homes & residents with tax exemptions out. Then, they had developers buy, demolish, and rebuild new to resell where the City could increase it's tax base.

As a bonus to this change, you could downsize another government department. Always a plus. 😁

Here are the problems with your scenario… I’ve got a friend that just looked at a 1.8 acre lot in Evergreen, Texas yesterday morning. New subdivision, concrete streets, underground utilities, HEAVILY restricted. The price for this 1.8 acre lot is $149k.  If I give a 1/4 acre off of the east end of my place on a dirt road that floods to my kid and he builds the same exact house as my buddy, they’d be taxed the same under your plan, even though my kid’s house is literally worth a fraction of what my buddy’s would be worth.  Not to point fingers, but a small, remodeled, frame house in the city of Groves would have the same insurable value as one on the west side of port Arthur that hasn’t seen a coat of paint in 25 years and sits in the middle of a few abandoned, burned down structures. Homes in Lum sell for completely different prices than houses in Kountze, despite their relative closeness. Neighborhoods matter in terms of affordability and value… your model calculates value on the price of lumber used to build the thing, while ignoring the actual value of the entire property.  It’s not fair or equitable in my opinion. 
 

if your value is too high, file a protest with the CAD this spring.  Round up your documentation as to what you believe it’s worth, and see what happens. Unfortunately, most people realize that homes in their area are going for much higher prices than they believed. One of my gripes is that the values are set based on sales prices… but that final sales prices usually includes thousands in repairs/upgrades to make the thing marketable, plus the 6% that’s going to pay the real estate agent(s) and often times it still includes the closing cost assistance that sellers give to buyers. Why are we all being taxed every year based upon sales prices that include the costs to market/sell the properties that sold down the street? It’s a legit gripe. My opinion is that a number that exists about 8-10% below the final sales prices of comparable sales should be used to establish appraised values for homes that haven’t sold in a couple of years. When you buy, your taxable value would stay static until your market value as determined by the Cad rose was 10% higher than your purchase price… then you’d start the ride upwards. 

Quite simply put, I don’t believe that the scenario you described occurs.  Nobody is being taxed and fee’d out of their houses so that cities can improve their tax base.  Municipalities move at the speed of glaciers. If some urban planner got the bright idea to raze a whole neighborhood and put in new housing, it would take years to get approval, legal fights, etc. What it sounds like to me is that your kinfolk had a property that wasn’t very well-maintained, while others around it were… subsequently they sold for ever-increasing prices while your kinfolks’ property sat needing paint, a roof, etc.  Unfortunately those comparable sales are what is used to establish property values (and subsequent taxable values).  Cities do have ordinances that require you to maintain your property.  If you neglect your property, one of the last tools that the city has is to levy fines for violating city ordinances.  There was a news story about two weeks ago about a house on 32nd street in groves that’s finally about to be cleaned up after years of neglect, complaints, etc… the entire yard is covered in used tires, appliances, etc. Some people would argue that the property owner has a right to do whatever he wants on his/her own little slice of Heaven.  But I also bet that they wouldn’t want to live next door to the guy, either, based on the sight, smells, vermin, fire hazards, etc….

It’s an imperfect system, but to my way of thinking, it’s better than most of the alternatives, but it could use some tweaks. 

[thetragichippy]

20 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Not a fan. As I said, this needs to stop.

I honestly think the 10% cap on credit cards is a great idea. The point about they would only give cc’s  to people with high credit scores that had less of a risk to pay it back and not to people who have bad credit scores is a win for the bank!  The truth is, it is a win for customers who get credit cards, go crazy and spend more than they can afford….  There’s also a way around that, limit risk by limiting exposure.  The person that got a $2000 credit card limit with 30% interest, now gets an $800 credit limit at 10%.

As for mortgages and taxes….it is typically not the loan that gets you, it’s the taxes and insurance that consistently goes up.  I’ve always wanted a house on the water, but flood alone was $3900 a year….add windstorm and fire policy, along with taxes, that would add almost $1000 a month to your mortgage

 

 

[OlDawg]

16 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Here are the problems with your scenario… I’ve got a friend that just looked at a 1.8 acre lot in Evergreen, Texas yesterday morning. New subdivision, concrete streets, underground utilities, HEAVILY restricted. The price for this 1.8 acre lot is $149k.  If I give a 1/4 acre off of the east end of my place on a dirt road that floods to my kid and he builds the same exact house as my buddy, they’d be taxed the same under your plan, even though my kid’s house is literally worth a fraction of what my buddy’s would be worth.  Not to point fingers, but a small, remodeled, frame house in the city of Groves would have the same insurable value as one on the west side of port Arthur that hasn’t seen a coat of paint in 25 years and sits in the middle of a few abandoned, burned down structures. Homes in Lum sell for completely different prices than houses in Kountze, despite their relative closeness. Neighborhoods matter in terms of affordability and value… your model calculates value on the price of lumber used to build the thing, while ignoring the actual value of the entire property.  It’s not fair or equitable in my opinion. 
 

if your value is too high, file a protest with the CAD this spring.  Round up your documentation as to what you believe it’s worth, and see what happens. Unfortunately, most people realize that homes in their area are going for much higher prices than they believed. One of my gripes is that the values are set based on sales prices… but that final sales prices usually includes thousands in repairs/upgrades to make the thing marketable, plus the 6% that’s going to pay the real estate agent(s) and often times it still includes the closing cost assistance that sellers give to buyers. Why are we all being taxed every year based upon sales prices that include the costs to market/sell the properties that sold down the street? It’s a legit gripe. My opinion is that a number that exists about 8-10% below the final sales prices of comparable sales should be used to establish appraised values for homes that haven’t sold in a couple of years. When you buy, your taxable value would stay static until your market value as determined by the Cad rose was 10% higher than your purchase price… then you’d start the ride upwards. 

Quite simply put, I don’t believe that the scenario you described occurs.  Nobody is being taxed and fee’d out of their houses so that cities can improve their tax base.  Municipalities move at the speed of glaciers. If some urban planner got the bright idea to raze a whole neighborhood and put in new housing, it would take years to get approval, legal fights, etc. What it sounds like to me is that your kinfolk had a property that wasn’t very well-maintained, while others around it were… subsequently they sold for ever-increasing prices while your kinfolks’ property sat needing paint, a roof, etc.  Unfortunately those comparable sales are what is used to establish property values (and subsequent taxable values).  Cities do have ordinances that require you to maintain your property.  If you neglect your property, one of the last tools that the city has is to levy fines for violating city ordinances.  There was a news story about two weeks ago about a house on 32nd street in groves that’s finally about to be cleaned up after years of neglect, complaints, etc… the entire yard is covered in used tires, appliances, etc. Some people would argue that the property owner has a right to do whatever he wants on his/her own little slice of Heaven.  But I also bet that they wouldn’t want to live next door to the guy, either, based on the sight, smells, vermin, fire hazards, etc….

It’s an imperfect system, but to my way of thinking, it’s better than most of the alternatives, but it could use some tweaks. 

You are obviously very unaware of how construction estimating works. The prices are based on local areas as I've mentioned. The only way for the taxes to be the same--other than sheer chance--is if the exact same house was built in the exact same area, using the exact same materials, the exact same labor, and the exact same logistical costs.

The scenario I described does occur. Drive up to Lower Greenville area in DFW. All you see now is McMansions filled with yuppies. Every so often, you'll see a nice, older home. But, not too often at all.

[TheMissingBand]

1 minute ago, OlDawg said:

You are obviously very unaware of how construction estimating works. The prices are based on local areas as I've mentioned. The only way for the taxes to be the same--other than sheer chance--is if the exact same house was built in the exact same area, using the exact same materials, the exact same labor, and the exact same logistical costs.

That was exactly my scenario. Same exact house. Greatly differing values, same tax bill. 

[OlDawg]

5 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

That was exactly my scenario. Same exact house. Greatly differing values, same tax bill. 

I'm lost. If the replacement cost is different, the tax bill would be different. If your land floods, and his doesn't, replacement costs wouldn't be the same. Insurance requirements to rebuild would be different.

[TheMissingBand]

2 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I'm lost. If the replacement cost is different, the tax bill would be different.

Are construction costs different in Port Neches than they are in Port Arthur?

[OlDawg]

24 minutes ago, TheMissingBand said:

Are construction costs different in Port Neches than they are in Port Arthur?

Probably not that much. Similar geographic area. Would depend on labor and flood/natural disaster ratings since y'all are right together more I would think. But, people also forget, your locale's fire protection rating also has a major impact. If your city's insurance is cheaper (the insurance they actually buy for themselves as a municipality) because of the way they have their fire stations located, it would have an effect on your personal insurance. This could also affect your rebuild costs. That's another reason it would be almost impossible to have exactly the same tax rates. Not totally impossible. But very rare, as no two houses are the same.

[OlDawg]

19 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I honestly think the 10% cap on credit cards is a great idea. The point about they would only give cc’s  to people with high credit scores that had less of a risk to pay it back and not to people who have bad credit scores is a win for the bank!  The truth is, it is a win for customers who get credit cards, go crazy and spend more than they can afford….  There’s also a way around that, limit risk by limiting exposure.  The person that got a $2000 credit card limit with 30% interest, now gets an $800 credit limit at 10%.

As for mortgages and taxes….it is typically not the loan that gets you, it’s the taxes and insurance that consistently goes up.  I’ve always wanted a house on the water, but flood alone was $3900 a year….add windstorm and fire policy, along with taxes, that would add almost $1000 a month to your mortgage

 

 

So, you think it's win for the government to involve themselves in private business? Is it also a great idea for them to tell restaurants what they can serve, and how much people can eat because folks love the food so much they eat too much and have health issues?

[TheMissingBand]

Just now, OlDawg said:

So, you think it's win for the government to involve themselves in private business? Is it also a great idea for them to tell restaurants what they can serve, and how much people can eat because folks love the food so much they eat too much and have health issues?

That’s an overreach… but i do like having a health department around to make sure that things are sanitary around those restaurants… food temps, extermination schedules , etc.