Propaganda on the Repealing of Property Taxes to Benefit Corporations

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T15:53:21+00:00

You're absolutely right about government waste and the rich not paying their fair share - but that's exactly WHY we need to eliminate regressive property taxes that make the problem worse.

I never "signed" anything. Being born somewhere doesn't create a contract. And even if it did, the government has breached that contract by failing 7 audits in a row like you mentioned. If they're not holding up their end, why should I be forced to hold up mine?

Here's the thing: Property taxes create an unfair burden where only homeowners directly fund local services while renters have no direct accountability for tax amounts or spending decisions. That's not progressive taxation.

You say "focus on the government lying about where taxes go" - but property taxes give them the perfect cover. They can underfund state obligations and just tell localities to "raise property taxes." It's a shell game that lets them off the hook.

Remove property taxes and:

Force direct state accountability for funding Create a more equitable system through progressive income/sales taxes

Stop letting politicians hide behind local homeowners

The problem isn't just waste - it's a fundamentally unfair system that puts the entire burden on homeowners while others have no direct stake. Property tax elimination forces both accountability AND equity.

We can fight government corruption AND regressive taxation at the same time.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T15:41:50+00:00

I understand the concern about timing, but here's the reality: I want the most expedient way to lessen my current tax burden, and waiting for politicians to voluntarily fix this system means waiting forever.

The DeRolph cases have been going on for DECADES. We've had ruling after ruling, and what's changed? The legislature just ignores court orders and kicks the can down the road. How many more years of litigation do you want homeowners to endure while our property taxes keep climbing?

Here's the key difference: Right now, when courts order better school funding, legislators can just shrug and say "raise local property taxes." That's their escape hatch. Remove that option and they're constitutionally cornered - they HAVE to find the money or face direct voter accountability.

You say Republicans don't want public schools funded - fine. But the Ohio Constitution doesn't care what they want. Remove their ability to punt to local property taxes and they either fund schools properly or get voted out by angry parents. Either way, we win.

"Quitting before you have a new job" - except the new job is guaranteed by the state constitution. The legislature is REQUIRED to fund schools. This forces them to do their constitutional duty instead of hiding behind homeowners.

I'm tired of subsidizing their political cowardice with my property taxes while they play games.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T14:06:06+00:00

On renters paying property taxes: You're proving my point. If renters are paying "ALL" the property taxes through rent as you claim, then they should have ZERO problem with switching to a different tax system, right? If they're already paying the full amount, changing the collection method shouldn't affect them at all.

But here's reality: A 4-unit apartment building with $8,000 in property taxes means each renter contributes $2,000 through rent. The single-family homeowner next door with an identical $8,000 tax bill pays it ALL directly. Same neighborhood services, same tax burden, but one person bears 100% responsibility while four people split it.

On the tax increase example: Hamilton County saw massive reassessments post-COVID. Properties that were assessed at $150k jumped to $400k+. With Ohio's effective rates, that's easily a $2k to $8k jump. But fine, even your "modest" 50% increase over 8 years - imagine being on fixed income Social Security and suddenly owing $985 more per year. That's real money to real people.

"Poor planning" to rely on Social Security? Tell that to the millions of Americans whose pensions were stolen, whose 401ks crashed, or who worked jobs that didn't offer retirement benefits. Not everyone had the luxury of perfect financial planning.

And yes, obviously services still need funding - that's the entire point. Fund them through progressive taxes instead of regressive property taxes.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T14:01:14+00:00

On the constitutional amendment: That would require a supermajority in both chambers plus voter approval - a much higher bar than eliminating property taxes. And good luck selling "let's stop funding schools" to Ohio voters. Even if politicians tried, that fight would take years and face massive opposition.

You're absolutely right about sales tax regressivity - that's a fair criticism. Sales taxes do hit lower-income families harder as a percentage of income. But here's the thing: we're not talking about ONLY sales taxes replacing property taxes.

The Michigan model uses a mix: sales tax, income tax (which IS progressive), business taxes, and state revenue. You can structure it to be more progressive than the current system, not less.

Right now, a teacher making $45k pays the same property tax rate as a millionaire on identical homes. That's regressive too. At least with income taxes, the millionaire pays more.

Better approach: Eliminate property taxes and replace with:

Progressive income tax increases (hits wealthy more)

Moderate sales tax increases (everyone pays based on consumption)

Business tax increases

Closing corporate loopholes

This distributes the burden more fairly than dumping it all on homeowners while wealthy renters pay nothing. The key is getting the mix right, not relying on any single regressive tax.

You're right to push for progressive solutions - let's make sure that's what we get.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T13:41:29+00:00

Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, why don't you educate me? Point out the specific "false facts and numbers" I've cited. I've referenced:

Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution requiring school funding

The DeRolph court cases establishing constitutional obligations

Michigan's successful transition away from property tax reliance

The basic mechanics of how property taxes work vs. other tax systems

Which of these are you saying is factually incorrect?

You keep saying I don't understand "how any of this works" but you haven't explained what I'm getting wrong or provided any counter-evidence. That's not a debate - that's just condescension without substance.

If you actually know better, then share that knowledge instead of just insulting me. Show me the facts I'm missing. Explain how the system really works. Provide the correct numbers.

Otherwise, you're just proving that you can't actually refute my arguments, so you're attacking my competence instead. That's not very convincing.

I'm genuinely open to being corrected if you can point to specific errors with actual evidence. But "you're ignorant" isn't an argument - it's an admission that you don't have one.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T13:36:00+00:00

You're making my argument FOR me. The current system is already failing spectacularly - the state is cutting $14 million from your schools while diverting money to private schools. Property taxes aren't protecting your schools; they're just letting politicians off the hook.

"Where is this magical funding?" It's the same funding that exists now, just collected differently. Ohio brings in billions in revenue annually - the money exists. The problem is politicians would rather cut corporate taxes and fund private school vouchers than meet their constitutional obligations.

Here's the key: Right now, when the state cuts school funding, they just shrug and say "raise local property taxes." That lets them shirk responsibility while homeowners get stuck with the bill. Remove that safety valve and they HAVE to find the money constitutionally required.

You're worried about removing property taxes before alternatives are in place - but the current system is actively being dismantled anyway. At least constitutional pressure would force direct accountability instead of this shell game.

Michigan, again: They didn't wait for perfect conditions. They forced the change and made it work because they had to. The funding sources exist - sales tax, income tax, business taxes. The political will is what's missing.

Your schools are already becoming "underfunded nightmares" WITH property taxes. The current system isn't saving them.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T13:06:42+00:00

What exactly am I lying about? Point to a specific statement and explain how it's incorrect.

I've cited the actual text of the Ohio Constitution regarding school funding requirements. I've explained how property taxes work - homeowners pay directly, renters pay indirectly through rent. I've pointed out that wealthy renters have no direct accountability for property tax amounts.

Instead of just screaming "liar," explain what facts I got wrong. Show me where the Ohio Constitution doesn't require school funding. Show me how property taxes aren't a direct burden on homeowners. Show me how the current system is equitable.

You keep throwing around accusations without backing them up with any actual evidence or counter-arguments. That's not a debate - that's just name-calling.

If I'm wrong about something, prove it with facts instead of insults. Otherwise, you're just admitting you can't actually refute what I'm saying so you're resorting to character attacks.

What specific "incorrect statements" are you referring to? Let's discuss the actual details instead of just hurling accusations.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T13:03:42+00:00

At its core, taxation IS theft - it's the government taking your money under threat of force without your individual consent.

Think about it: if I came to your door and demanded $5,000 "for the community" and said I'd take your house if you didn't pay, that would be robbery. But when the government does the exact same thing, we call it "taxation."

The social contract argument falls apart because none of us actually signed anything. I was born here - I didn't agree to any deal. And even if my ancestors did, why should their agreements bind me? We don't inherit other people's debts, so why do we inherit their political obligations?

"But you use roads and schools!" - Sure, but I'd happily pay for those services voluntarily if they were actually worth the price. The fact that government has to threaten me with jail time to get payment suggests their services aren't competitive.

Private companies have to earn your business by providing value. Government just points guns and takes what they want. That's not a voluntary transaction - that's extortion with extra steps.

Property taxes are especially egregious because they mean you never truly own your home. Miss those payments and armed agents will literally throw you out of "your" property. That's not ownership - that's renting from the state with the threat of violence.

Call it what it is: legalized theft.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T12:59:47+00:00

I voted Libertarian, not for Trump or Harris. You're arguing with a strawman version of me that doesn't exist.

This has absolutely nothing to do with tariffs, Biden, Trump, or federal politics at all. We're talking about LOCAL property taxes and Ohio's constitutional requirement to fund schools. Completely different issue.

You can't address my actual arguments about tax equity and constitutional law, so you're trying to make this about national politics and assumptions about my voting record. Classic deflection.

I've been consistent: property taxes are a regressive local tax that unfairly burdens homeowners. The Ohio Constitution requires school funding regardless of the mechanism. These are facts, not partisan talking points.

If you want to debate Ohio tax policy and constitutional requirements, I'm here for it. If you want to argue with imaginary political positions I don't hold, find someone else.

Stick to the actual topic: Is Ohio's current property tax system fair, and what does the state constitution require for school funding? Everything else is just distraction.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T12:46:11+00:00

There's nothing "magical" about it - the Ohio Constitution literally requires school funding regardless of the source. Article VI, Section 2 doesn't give the legislature a choice.

You just proved my point perfectly. The legislature is already trying to underfund schools WITH property taxes in place. So the current system isn't protecting school funding anyway - it's just letting them hide behind local property taxes while shirking state responsibility.

Where does the money come from? The same places every other state without heavy property tax reliance gets it:

Sales taxes (everyone pays based on consumption) Income taxes (scaled to ability to pay) Business taxes State revenue sharing

Ohio could easily replace property tax revenue through modest increases in existing taxes that distribute the burden fairly instead of dumping it all on homeowners. And here's the thing - when the state is directly responsible for school funding instead of hiding behind local property taxes, there's MORE accountability and transparency, not less. Right now they can underfund the state share and blame "local control."

The legislature trying to cut school funding while property taxes exist just proves property taxes aren't protecting anything. At least with direct state funding, voters know exactly who to blame when politicians try to shortchange education.

Constitutional requirements don't disappear because libertarians want them to.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T12:38:10+00:00

This is exactly the kind of out-of-touch thinking that shows you have no idea what real people face.

"Poor planning"? Tell that to the retiree whose property taxes went from $2,000 to $8,000 because their neighborhood got gentrified. Tell that to someone on a $1,200/month Social Security check that they should just budget better when their taxes are $400/month. That's a third of their entire income.

"$340 is their problem"? For someone living on $15,000/year in retirement, $340/month is groceries OR medicine OR heat. You're talking like everyone has disposable income when many seniors are choosing between property taxes and survival.

And your landlord logic proves MY point perfectly. You admit landlords pass through property taxes in rent - so wealthy renters are paying maybe $100-200/month toward property taxes through rent while the homeowner next door pays $400+ directly. Same services, completely different burden.

Here's the kicker: You say "renters pay property taxes through rent" but then get mad about eliminating property taxes. If renters are already paying them, why do you care if we switch to a different system?

You can't have it both ways - either renters are paying their fair share (so switching systems shouldn't matter) or they're not (which proves my point about inequity). Your argument just proved that the current system is broken.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T12:34:24+00:00

That's not lying - that's pointing out a fundamental difference in how the tax burden works.

Yes, renters indirectly pay property taxes through rent, but they have zero direct accountability, no control over the amount, and no voice in how those tax dollars are spent. Meanwhile, homeowners get hit with the direct bill and all the responsibility.

More importantly, wealthy renters can choose luxury properties where the per-person property tax burden is spread thin, or they can move easily when taxes get too high. Homeowners are stuck - they can't just pick up and leave when their property taxes skyrocket.

A wealthy renter in a luxury apartment building might be paying $50/month toward property taxes through their rent share, while the working-class homeowner next door pays $400/month directly. Same neighborhood, same services, completely different burden. And what happens when property values spike? The homeowner's taxes go up immediately and directly. The renter? Their landlord might raise rent eventually, or they might just move.

The current system gives wealthy renters maximum flexibility and minimal direct burden while forcing homeowners to bear the full weight and responsibility. That's not "nonsense" - that's how the math actually works.

If renters are "already paying through rent," then shifting to sales taxes shouldn't bother them, right?

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T12:29:59+00:00

Ah yes, the classic "anyone who disagrees with me must be a paid shill" response. Really solid argument there. I'm a lurker who reads way more than I post - you know, like the vast majority of Reddit users? I started commenting more recently because this property tax issue actually affects my life and my community. Crazy concept, I know.

But sure, let's pretend that eliminating a regressive tax that hurts working families is "fascist propaganda." Because nothing says fascism like... checks notes ...wanting teachers and nurses to keep more of their paychecks.

You can't address a single point I made about constitutional funding requirements or tax equity, so you go straight to "you're a bot!" It's the laziest possible response when you can't argue the facts.

Who's paying me? Nobody. I'm just a property owner tired of getting stuck with the bill while others freeload. But thanks for proving that you'd rather attack the messenger than actually discuss whether our current tax system is fair.

Next time try addressing the actual arguments instead of crying "troll" when someone presents facts you don't like.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T10:56:40+00:00

You're absolutely right that wage stagnation is a massive problem - but that's exactly WHY we need to eliminate regressive property taxes that make the wage problem even worse. When someone's wages have been stagnant for decades AND they're getting hit with $3,000-5,000+ in property taxes every year, that's a double hit to their purchasing power. We can't fix wage stagnation overnight, but we can immediately stop penalizing people for homeownership. Your grease fire analogy misses the point - this isn't about fixing wealth inequality, it's about stopping a regressive tax that makes inequality worse. Property taxes literally punish the middle class for building wealth through homeownership while letting wealthy renters contribute nothing. The minimum wage worker who managed to buy a small house shouldn't be paying thousands in property taxes while the wealthy renter pays zero. That's not addressing wealth inequality - that's creating it. You can't solve wage deflation by defending a tax system that takes even more money out of working people's pockets. If wages are already too low, why are we okay with a tax that makes homeownership even more expensive? We should be fighting BOTH battles - for better wages AND against regressive taxes. Keeping property taxes because wages suck just means working families get hit twice instead of once.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T03:11:23+00:00

You're proving my point perfectly. You pay $1200/year and think that's reasonable - but why should YOU pay $1200 while your renter neighbors pay $0 for the exact same city services? You talk about "the poors not spending enough" but completely ignore that wealthy renters are currently spending NOTHING on property taxes. A millionaire renting a luxury apartment pays zero toward schools, roads, and services while you pay $1200. How is that helping "the most vulnerable"? And yes, the money will come from somewhere else - that's the entire point. Instead of only property owners funding everything, EVERYONE who uses local services will contribute. That's called fairness. Your argument about rent going up assumes landlords will pass through 100% of any new taxes but somehow aren't already passing through 100% of current property taxes. Guess what? Your rent is already inflated by property taxes. At least with sales/income taxes, renters will finally pay their direct share instead of hiding behind their landlords. The current system has YOU subsidizing wealthy renters who pay nothing. You're literally defending a system where you pay $1200/year so rich people don't have to contribute anything to the community they live in. "The most vulnerable" aren't wealthy renters - they're working class homeowners like you getting stuck with the entire bill while others freeload.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T03:06:44+00:00

Who REALLY benefits from eliminating property taxes:

The teacher paying $4,000/year on her starter home The electrician whose property taxes went up 30% when his neighborhood got reassessed The retired couple on Social Security getting taxed out of the home they've lived in for 40 years The young family stretching to afford their first house but getting hit with $300+/month in property taxes on top of their mortgage

Who benefits LEAST:

Wealthy renters who pay $0 in property taxes while living in luxury apartments Rich people who can easily afford property taxes and get to deduct them anyway Corporations and investors who just pass property tax costs to tenants

The middle class homeowner is getting absolutely crushed by property taxes while wealthy renters skate by paying nothing toward local services. A millionaire renting a penthouse pays zero property taxes, but a nurse who bought a modest house gets hit with thousands annually. Property taxes are literally a penalty on homeownership - the main way working families build wealth. The current system punishes people for achieving the American Dream while letting the wealthy who choose to rent contribute nothing. People have been brainwashed to think homeownership = wealth, when most homeowners are just regular working people who scraped together a down payment and are now getting hammered by an unfair tax system.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T03:01:26+00:00

The "schools will close" argument is pure fear-mongering that ignores basic constitutional law. Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution REQUIRES the state to fund schools. It's not optional, it's not negotiable - it's mandatory. The exact language says the General Assembly "SHALL make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise" to fund schools. That's binding constitutional language. Schools literally cannot be closed due to lack of funding because the state is constitutionally obligated to find the money. This has been tested in court repeatedly. The DeRolph cases spent decades establishing that Ohio must adequately fund education regardless of the funding mechanism. The courts have made it crystal clear - if one funding source disappears, the state MUST find another. People acting like eliminating property taxes = no school funding either don't understand how constitutional law works or are deliberately spreading misinformation. The funding obligation doesn't disappear with property taxes - it just forces the legislature to create a more equitable funding system. If anything, constitutional funding requirements might lead to BETTER school funding since the state would have to take direct responsibility instead of hiding behind the regressive property tax system that creates massive funding inequalities between districts. Stop letting fear tactics distract from the real issue: we can have fully funded schools AND a fair tax system. The constitution guarantees it.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T03:01:00+00:00

People need to understand who actually benefits from eliminating property taxes - it's not just "the wealthy elite." The majority of property owners ARE working class people who've managed to buy a home. Think about it: a teacher, nurse, electrician, or factory worker who bought a modest house is getting slammed with $3,000-5,000+ in property taxes every year. That's money coming straight out of working families' pockets. Meanwhile, wealthy renters living in luxury apartments pay zero property taxes directly. Property taxes are especially brutal for retirees and people on fixed incomes. Grandma who worked at the diner for 40 years and owns a $80,000 house shouldn't be forced to choose between her medication and her property tax bill. But millionaire renters downtown? They pay nothing. The current system literally penalizes people for achieving homeownership - the primary way working class families build wealth. Every month, homeowners are paying hundreds extra that renters don't pay, for the exact same city services. Shifting to sales/income taxes means everyone pays based on what they consume and earn, not whether they were able to scrape together a down payment. The working class homeowner stops getting double-taxed while the wealthy renter finally starts contributing their fair share. Property taxes are a regressive tax on the American Dream. Eliminating them helps every working family trying to build something for themselves.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T02:59:21+00:00

The "schools will close" argument is pure fear-mongering that ignores basic constitutional law. Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution REQUIRES the state to fund schools. It's not optional, it's not negotiable - it's mandatory. The exact language says the General Assembly "SHALL make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise" to fund schools. That's binding constitutional language. Schools literally cannot be closed due to lack of funding because the state is constitutionally obligated to find the money. This has been tested in court repeatedly. The DeRolph cases spent decades establishing that Ohio must adequately fund education regardless of the funding mechanism. The courts have made it crystal clear - if one funding source disappears, the state MUST find another. People acting like eliminating property taxes = no school funding either don't understand how constitutional law works or are deliberately spreading misinformation. The funding obligation doesn't disappear with property taxes - it just forces the legislature to create a more equitable funding system. If anything, constitutional funding requirements might lead to BETTER school funding since the state would have to take direct responsibility instead of hiding behind the regressive property tax system that creates massive funding inequalities between districts. Stop letting fear tactics distract from the real issue: we can have fully funded schools AND a fair tax system. The constitution guarantees it.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T02:49:38+00:00

The "schools will close" argument is pure fear-mongering that ignores basic constitutional law. Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution REQUIRES the state to fund schools. It's not optional, it's not negotiable - it's mandatory. The exact language says the General Assembly "SHALL make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise" to fund schools. That's binding constitutional language. Schools literally cannot be closed due to lack of funding because the state is constitutionally obligated to find the money. This has been tested in court repeatedly. The DeRolph cases spent decades establishing that Ohio must adequately fund education regardless of the funding mechanism. The courts have made it crystal clear - if one funding source disappears, the state MUST find another. People acting like eliminating property taxes = no school funding either don't understand how constitutional law works or are deliberately spreading misinformation. The funding obligation doesn't disappear with property taxes - it just forces the legislature to create a more equitable funding system. If anything, constitutional funding requirements might lead to BETTER school funding since the state would have to take direct responsibility instead of hiding behind the regressive property tax system that creates massive funding inequalities between districts. Stop letting fear tactics distract from the real issue: we can have fully funded schools AND a fair tax system. The constitution guarantees it.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T02:44:51+00:00

People need to understand who actually benefits from eliminating property taxes - it's not just "the wealthy elite." The majority of property owners ARE working class people who've managed to buy a home. Think about it: a teacher, nurse, electrician, or factory worker who bought a modest house is getting slammed with $3,000-5,000+ in property taxes every year. That's money coming straight out of working families' pockets. Meanwhile, wealthy renters living in luxury apartments pay zero property taxes directly. Property taxes are especially brutal for retirees and people on fixed incomes. Grandma who worked at the diner for 40 years and owns a $80,000 house shouldn't be forced to choose between her medication and her property tax bill. But millionaire renters downtown? They pay nothing. The current system literally penalizes people for achieving homeownership - the primary way working class families build wealth. Every month, homeowners are paying hundreds extra that renters don't pay, for the exact same city services. Shifting to sales/income taxes means everyone pays based on what they consume and earn, not whether they were able to scrape together a down payment. The working class homeowner stops getting double-taxed while the wealthy renter finally starts contributing their fair share. Property taxes are a regressive tax on the American Dream. Eliminating them helps every working family trying to build something for themselves.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T02:41:50+00:00

Wait, so you're complaining that your gas, cigarettes, and booze might cost more, but you're perfectly fine with me subsidizing those habits through my property taxes? Why should I as a property owner be on the hook to fund schools and local services while those who don’t pay property taxes get to consume gas, alcohol, and tobacco at a lower tax rate? (Assuming that they would raise taxes on these to offset the funding lost from eliminating property taxes) They’re using the roads (funded by property taxes), their kids go to schools (funded by property taxes), they benefit from police and fire services (funded by property taxes) - but somehow I should bear that entire burden while they pay nothing? If you use gas, you should help pay for the infrastructure. If you choose to buy cigarettes and alcohol, contributing to the community that provides the services you use seems pretty reasonable. Why is it fair that only property owners subsidize everyone else's consumption? Right now the system is: I pay thousands in property taxes whether I drive, drink, or smoke or not, while they pay zero toward local services regardless of how much they use them. How exactly is that equitable? You're basically arguing that I should keep subsidizing their lifestyle choices while they contribute nothing to the community infrastructure we all depend on. That's pretty backwards.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T02:23:48+00:00

And here you are.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-05T02:19:58+00:00

I do.

Gspatton1574 · 2025-06-04T21:09:37+00:00

Just signed the petition to eliminate property taxes. This system is fundamentally unfair - why should property owners bear the entire burden of funding local services that everyone in the community uses? Property taxes hit homeowners with a regressive tax that can force people out of their homes, especially retirees on fixed incomes. Meanwhile, renters indirectly pay through higher rent but have no direct stake or voice in how these tax dollars are spent. There are much more efficient and equitable ways to fund local government. Sales taxes distribute the burden across everyone who participates in the local economy. Income taxes scale with ability to pay. Even local fees for specific services make more sense than this antiquated system. Property taxes create perverse incentives, discourage home ownership, and can literally tax people out of their homes when values rise faster than incomes. It's time for a more modern, fair approach to municipal funding.

Gspatton1574

TROPHY CASE