Not to put Mr. Kamman on par with Peter Schiff, but does anybody in the real estate world of economists consider property taxes or am I the only one?
The recovery in housing prices and the housing market (if you can even call it that-"recovery" i mean) is going to be moot unless people are allowed to own said houses without a punishing tax bill at the end. Currently I am renting out a place for 200% the property taxes on my old place back in Minneapolis. In short I pay only twice what my property taxes were per month to rent out a similar size swelling. ie- I believe landlords are subsidizing renters (for a whole host of reasons I don't care to explain now). So tell me, if you pay to own an asset every year, is that really an asset? Or is it a liability?
Because I'm no economic genius (well, actually, I am, and a good looking one to boot), but unless the rents you generate exceed the cash flows you're paying out OR the money you'd save on renting is more than the property taxes you pay, then that piece of land with a structure on top of it is NOT an asset, it's a liability. ie- homeowners are really nothing more than voluntary donors to the local and state governments.
I guess my larger point is that unless there are some laws passed that will limit how much local governments can extort from property owners, in the end I doubt ANY property in the US will have ANY value...a dream most marxists and communists would love.
Oh well, you voted for these communist f*cks.
Enjoy the decline!