The Observation Deck

Taxes in our cities, state and country are not intended to be "equitable" in the sense that what one puts in, one gets out. Rather, taxes are largely redistribution of wealth/social inequality/social equality concepts. Our schools help society as a whole regardless of whether those who pay for them attend. For example, I pay nearly $16K a year in real estate taxes and my kids have never attended Lakewood Public Schools--I could gripe and moan about how efficiently our money is spent on this or that, but conceptually, I have no problem that those that can afford to pay and support the public schools should be taxed.

If your goal is to make households' share of school expenses proportionate to how much they use, this would actually make little sense to me. I rent, and my household's "amount of children consuming school resources" is zero. It has never been more than zero for as long as I have lined in Lakewood, and is very unlikely ever to be more than zero.

Our schools need more money and we've got to get it somewhere. It doesn't seem nuts to me to get some of it from the folks who profit from having rental property that is made more attractive by our schools.

I don't feel that people that don't have kids shouldn't pay taxes for our schools. I feel it must be a shared burden. But, I suspect it's not equally shared at all since it's tied to property tax, and some of us have none. Yes, all the houses are charged property tax which goes to the school, but people are not houses. My guess is that if you added the number of school age children in rental houses (2-3 households per building) to single family owner occupied homes, that the doubles average a lot more kids, especially over time. In my opinion, if my hunch were to be proved true, that would mean that it makes sense to charge a higher tax rate on rental property.

Yes, I also have a hunch that if you added up all the 19-35 year olds making their 15k-27k a year while living here but not paying their 1.5% that it is a significant amount of money each year. The taxes on 15,000 are $225. Are there 3,000 people like this in our city? Again, all I have is my hunch, and I'd love to see some data on this, though how reliable can the data be since these folks aren't reporting their taxes to the city and often aren't on leases or their drivers license shows some other address, etc.

Again, I would love to have these hunches of mine confirmed or dispelled with data. Just not sure how to get it.

Anderson admits in the letter that the Finance Department can find out who filed Ohio returns using Lakewood addresses. What more do they need?

Lastly, it may be the wrong approach to make landlords report who their tenants are to the city, though it seems to me that the city knows exactly who is living in my home, so... like Billy Jean said, "Fair is fair." However, yeah, why don't they use the info they have access to already!

Todd

Another point to consider. While renters don't directly pay property tax, they DO indirectly pay them. Ask any economist.

Rent is a function of both costs and market forces. The property tax the owner pays Figures into the rent equation. As many renters may notice, when property taxes go up, rent goes up.

Also, keep in mind that if you itemize deductions, real estate taxes are deductible. Landlords deduct property taxes as part of their accounting of expenses.

So again, it's unfair to say renters don't pay for schools. They do, just in a different way.

Bridget Conant wrote:While renters don't directly pay property tax, they DO indirectly pay them. Ask any economist.

Rent is a function of both costs and market forces. The property tax the owner pays Figures into the rent equation. As many renters may notice, when property taxes go up, rent goes up.

Thank you. I can confirm this.

todd vainisi wrote:Our schools need more money and we've got to get it somewhere.

Since when? Source?

Rent is a function of both costs and market forces.

Yes, yes it is. And one of the market forces is that rent is generally higher where the schools are better. And cmager, I have never once heard the schools say they have enough money and have no plans to ask for more in the foreseeable future. The endless stream of levees seems to inform me otherwise. Would you believe that I am paying $1,300 more in taxes then I was 15 years ago? I assure you it's out of proportion to the increase in value.

I'm not trying to suggest that renters don't indirectly fund the schools, they do. I'm saying that rental property owners benefit from the strength of the school and can get better rent when there are strong schools.

todd vainisi wrote:I have never once heard the schools say they have enough money and have no plans to ask for more in the foreseeable future.

I recall a campaign, little more than three years ago, ceaselessly promising that the Yes vote which ultimately resulted would not only "Finish the job," but would "save our district money on operating and maintenance costs" and mean "schools that are more affordable in the long run." [Emphasis added.]

todd vainisi wrote:I'm saying that rental property owners benefit from the strength of the school and can get better rent when there are strong schools.

How is this different from owner-occupied property owners benefiting from higher property values? (Or realtors benefiting from larger commissions. Or business owners benefiting from the increased custom which presumably comes with more-appealing local schools. Or employers benefiting from a better-educated labor force.)

I really just don't see a valid reason for concluding that rental property benefits from some unparalleled "free ride" on public education's costs and benefits.

MJ - you make very valid points.

I really just don't see a valid reason for concluding that rental property benefits from some unparalleled "free ride" on public education's costs and benefits.

Well, I begin with the notion/hunch that rental units utilize our public schools at a higher rate than single family, owner occupied homes. I wish I had some real data.

That's generous of you to say—thank you indeed.

I feel confident that the information you're speculating on exists somewhere, probably online. There is so much census and other statistical data these days that it seems very likely, at least. (On the other hand, there is so much census and other statistical data these days that finding what you want can be a long process, in my experience.)

This is just me, any increases in taxes, fee's, permits, obligation, assessments will be passed on to my tenants, if the cost becomes too high for renters, they will look elsewhere, Lakewood could be "cutting off their nose to spite there face"? In the end, all of Lakewood will loose.

Why aren't the protesters on this site, with their bright ideas, critical opinions, and there demanding answers to important issues, why aren't they running for office and be in fact, running the city? Get rid of Summers or who ever else you deem useless.