The City Solicitor's office just put out a press release in which they explain that starting today, they're posting a list of names of property owners who are delinquent in paying their property taxes.
The list will be published in the Daily News on Monday but you can find it on their website right now.
Are your neighbors tax scofflaws? You can find out since they have it sorted alphabetically as well as by amount. Should make for some pretty interesting over-the-backyard-fence conversation.
(Ok... I just checked to make sure that my name isn't on that list and it isn't. Onward with this post!)
Such a list has always been a matter of public record and watchdog sites like Hallwatch.org have been keeping a running tally for several years now. Do you want to know the Top 100 individual tax dodgers? Hallwatch.org has it The top 100 corporations? Same. (Hmmm... look at that. SEPTA is number 1. I suppose their philosophy about property taxes is "we're getting it there.")
"City Hall" has caught up to Hallwatch.
The only difference I can see is that the city's versions don't seem to include property taxes owed by the City itself or other quasi-governmental agencies like SEPTA, the RDA, etc. I suppose that makes sense since the collecting from the City or other taxpayer funded entities is just a matter of shifting our dollars from one place to another.
But...
If a percentage of property taxes are designated specifically for the schools, doesn't this mean that the schools are shortchanged when the city fails to collect them from anyone... even from itself.
I know one frequent commenter who is chomping at the bit to talk about this. Have at it!
Comments (11)
Wow, there seem to be a lot of those in West Philly. It's be interesting if they could be grouped by council district.
And, yes, an argument could be made for forcing agencies like the RDA and PHA to pay property taxes. Not only does it help fund schools, it also gives those organizations an incentive not to sit on vacant land/buildings while they rot for decades.
Posted by Anonymous | February 21, 2008 5:19 PM
Unless one is using their property to make money, property taxes make no sense whatsoever, and no true democracy would tolerate their existence. Taxation should only be directed where there's cashflow, and it makes no sense to extract money from where there isn't any.
But....Philadelphia is doing just that, not that it's the only place in the U.S. guilty of this, while the nonthinking citizens of here so readily accept it. And it certainly isn't fair to education that it be payed for in that manner. Meaning that of all those opposed to property taxes in Philadelphia, its teachers should be at the forefront.
Back in the days before Philadelphia had property taxes, my father attended Frankford High School. And reviewing his old term papers from then as well as that of his fellow students, Frankford High School's quality of education at that time was at college level. But today I wouldn't even send my dog to there. Public education-wise, how did they pull off in those days what we can't seem to today? Very simple. They used their brains.
But God forbid Philadelphia should try doing that again! For why do that when its citizens of today are willing to tolerate what its previous generations would've never stood for?
And make a special note: Aside from parts of the city which are in the blindspot of our city's current government, the only places in Philadelphia that are alive and well now are those where the city's 10-year property tax abatements are in effect. Coincidence? Hardly. To have property taxes in a city such as this, where so much of the city is residential and likewise people are not making money from the properties they own, to have such a thing as property taxes is as STUPID AS IT GETS!!! But duh-uh, welcome to Philadelphia as it is now.
Philadelphia is the most historic city in the most historic state in the U.S. Sylvester Stallone in a radio interview last year said that at one time some of the greatest minds the world has ever known were all concentrated here. And he was totally right. But between then and now somehow a bunch of total morons rose up and took it over. And all of you know just who I mean. But you know what? I would like to think that something similar to what spurred the Crusades could be repeated in Philadelphia's case, a massive reclamation of the city if you will. Hey, one who still has a mind intact can dream, can't he?
Posted by Steve W. | February 22, 2008 2:59 AM
Sorry Steve, I can't agree with you on the property tax idea. The value of one's property is at least partially tied to efforts by the government to improve the area around it.
Even if that's not the case, how else do you propose that everyone share the burden in paying for services like garbage pick up and policing?
Let's say the city took the plunge and abolished property taxes. Yes, at first there might be a rush of folks to come in, buy property and live here. But when they realize that their wages are getting taxed well in excess of similar taxes in the suburbs and when suburbanites refuse to work here because their wages are getting taxed like crazy (necessary to make up for lost property tax revenue), every business in the city that can move, will move. The suburbs will eat our lunch.
Then who is paying the taxes for everything? A few suckers who continue to live here even as garbage pick up goes to once per month. A few businesses that are stuck here until they go bankrupt.
Taxation shouldn't only be used where there's cashflow, like you say. Taxation can also be used to capture some of the benefits of an increase in value or "stock."
Posted by Dan P. | February 22, 2008 9:24 AM
Steve, you make some good points, but the 10 year tax abatement is in effect city-wide. The city's improving in areas where there are jobs, as well as areas that provide easy commuting access to those areas.
I think so many people are oblivious to property taxes because they're generally an escrow payment that's rolled into their mortgage payment. Income taxes are much more visible, since they show up as deductions to your paycheck.
Posted by Goofy | February 22, 2008 10:03 AM
I see Dan P beat me to the punch.
I'll go ahead and add that a land-value tax would help ease the burden on homeowners and shift it more heavily onto commercial uses, while encouraging more efficient land use (think Wal-Mart with a big parking lot. They'd end up paying a larger share of the city's property taxes under a land-value system).
Posted by Goofy | February 22, 2008 10:07 AM
Did someone just quote Sylvester Stallone as a knowledgeable source?
Only in Philadelphia.
Posted by ls | February 22, 2008 1:15 PM
Dan, over the past 30 years or so there have been many many well-meaning businessmen wanting to set up shop here to get Philadelphia back to being the great wealth generator it once was -- only to get obstructed by our city's (or state's) politicians each time, not to mention our city's unions and so on. And these are businesses that would not mind providing tremendous new revenues for our city, provided the essentialness of cashflow in order for this to be possible is not lost sight of.
When such businesses are blocked from emerging here and taxation is then directed where there is no actual cashflow, it amounts to none other than a city feeding on itself, and also on the rest of the state, when considering how much of Philadelphia is merely propped up now by the constant bailouts our politicians wheedle out of the rest of the state.
In terms of directing taxation where there is no cashflow, what happens when this is done? Envision yourself as a Northeast Philly, or West Philly homeowner. You own your home but are not using it to generate money in any way. It is simply where you reside. Unless you go to sell it, or rent it out, there is no money to speak of. So given that, what's to tax? When homeowners who are not making money from the homes they live in pay their property taxes, obviously the money they use isn't coming from their home. Either they have to pay these property taxes from their savings or whatever way they generate money, which in this case isn't from homeownership. And it should be pointed out that savings also isn't in the category of cashflow. Meaning that when someone pays property taxes from their savings, unless they have some way of replenishing those savings from where they do have cashflow, what that is leading up to is very much obvious. Eventually their savings will run out, at which point then what do they do, what becomes of them? The answer is obvious. Because of the government's stupid insistence on taxing where there is no cashflow they have to give up the homes that they own.
But on the government's part I think that's the whole idea to be quite frank about this whole thing. It's a type of revived Nazi-ism, that and nothing more. For all the underlying fundamentals are exactly the same. One sector of society turns on the other, confiscates and liquidates what the other has, all so as to make itself strong. But on the grander scale it comes as a result of a city feeding on itself. And right now Philadelphia is feeding on itself so as to rise up, there is no question about that. And right now it's being presented as the right direction to go on, based on the results the "benefiting" side of the equation has seen so far. It's not the homeowners who are not making money from the homes they own who are saying it's the right direction to go in. It is only those government officials and city bureaucrats victimizing those homeowners who are saying this.
Sure, trash collection has to be paid for. Education has to be paid for. Police and fire protection has to be paid for. Street maintenance has to be paid for. And so forth and so on. No one is disputing that. But when these things are paid for from revenues being extracted from where there is no cashflow, that is nothing other than a city feeding on itself, and likewise destroying itself, or at least it's one part of it destroying the other for its own sake at the other's expense. And right now that arrangement appears to work. The same way pyramid schemes work for a time.
Although the 10-year property tax abatements may be city-wide, they are greatly flawed in that they apply to new construction only. And while that might be music to the ears of our city's construction workers, creating a powerful incentive to do away with the old and in with the new, creating all sorts of opportunities for them, there is a very serious draining effect going on while that is happening. Again referring back to the homeowner, the homeowner wants to hold onto the house he or she owns even though it isn't new. They paid for it, and they want to keep it. And shouldn't that be exactly what we want to see happen? But under the current Nazi-like system, unless they can come up with cashflow to hold onto it, they can't. So what becomes of such people therefore? Do any of you know? Under the current system they can't stay here, so where do they go? A quite similar question was asked by many when the Nazi Third Reich was at its height in Germany and longstanding neighbors all went missing.
I grew up in this city. I'm fourth generation to here. But I'll tell you, every last person I grew up with here has long moved away, or in many instances simply disappeared. As much as I ask around, no one knows where they went to. Some, now living elsewhere, I continue to stay in touch with. But with so many others it's just a huge big blank. I know, I know, "they all went to Betson's." But seriously. For that matter, where did Betson's go?
And we say that taxation directed at businesses -- where there is cashflow -- drives businesses out. But you know what? That's not the case at all. Rather, businesses go to where people are. And if we keep driving our residents out through directing taxation to where there is no cashflow, then what market is there for the businesses here to look to?
My remedy for bringing this city back around again is do away with property taxes first and foremost, and all across the board at that, not just regarding new construction, and not just for a mere 10 year period but forever. This will draw many people to want to come back to live here again and also enable those who are still here to continue to stay. And when people return to living here, the businesses will follow. And the money not spent on property taxes will be used to cater those businesses instead, hence creating what legitimately can be called cashflow, and likewise a perfectly fair thing to tax. As for businesses footing the bill of such things as residential trash collection, education, police and fire protection and so on -- the way it once was in Philadelphia -- only the stupidest, most shortsighted business operators would scoff at this. Which, I kind of hate to have to say, is the kind of businesses we have here now. But when businesses foot the bill of those things they help to secure the market they have here. When they refuse and insist that we must, not them, then it all becomes, geeze! Who wants to live here?! And for many Philadelphians now the question is becoming, who can live here? And many asked that question years ago and moved out accordingly, taking so much that had been great about this city with them.
Posted by Steve W. | February 23, 2008 3:51 AM
ls Wrote: "Did someone just quote Sylvester Stallone as a knowledgeable source?
Only in Philadelphia."
It is a fact that when Sylvester Stallone was here in Philadelphia last year -- to shoot and then promote his movie ROCKY BALBOA -- he appeared on a local radio talkshow and said exactly what I did earlier. And what he pointed out was indeed true, unless you don't think too much of our country's Founding Fathers who all once met here plus the many enlightened industrialists and artisans and educators and so forth who literally flourished here following America's Revolution. Perhaps in Barack Obama fashion Stallone was merely plagiarizing what he heard someone else say, and like Obama failed to give proper credit where it was due. If so, shame on him. But, innocent till proven guilty. My point was really having to do with what Stallone said, but whether he was the originating source of what he said, all I can say is that's where I heard it first. And unlike Obama, I acknowledged where I heard it from. Can you fault me for that? And likewise let Obama slide?
Posted by Steve W. | February 23, 2008 4:19 AM
Don't understand why the City has to contract out these collections to an out of town operation.
Posted by Anonymous | February 23, 2008 7:48 PM
Ha!
It's not that I don't agree with Sly's point, it's that - of all the possible sources in the world - you chose to quote SS.
Now, having lived in 5 states, 3 countries, and about 12 cities, let me say again: only in Philadelphia.
Now, in the words of Sly's unquestioned superior, "Hasta la vista, baby."
Posted by ls | February 24, 2008 5:42 PM
I see my neighbor, Mike Slocum, owner of the Philadelphia Trolley Works has moved up from #7 to #4 in tax deadbeats, according to Hallwatch. I guess his contributions to Mayor Nutter's campaign is paying off big time.
Posted by Mark Chalupa | February 25, 2008 9:10 AM