Your government at work: good and bad. First, the bad.

Homeowners took a trillion-dollar hit as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, according to ProPublica.

The math is difficult to follow, but the independent investigative newsroom reported recently that President Trump’s tax reform package bestowing nearly $700 billion in benefits to corporations also harmed millions of homeowners, who are paying the price of Trump’s largesse.

Because the 2017 law capped the deduction for state and local property taxes at $10,000, everyone who owns a house has seen its value decline.

Consider someone earning $200,000 a year who purchased a million-dollar house. Assuming a mortgage rate of 5%, the inability to write off real estate taxes means the place is now worth $138,720 less, according to ProPublica. At 4%, the loss jumps by nearly $35,000, to $173,400.

Of course, big losses like that don’t apply across the board. If you take the standard deduction, for example, you can’t deduct property taxes. And taxes can be higher or lower depending on where you live and on the value of your house.

But the principle is the same, and “applies to everyone who owns a home or is interested in owning one,” reported ProPublica’s Allan Sloan.

And there’s this kicker: “According to the Tax Policy Center, the Treasury will get $620 billion of additional revenue over a 10-year period because people can’t deduct their full state and local taxes. That, in turn, covers most of the 10-year, $680 billion cost of the income tax break that corporations are getting.”

The bottom line: Homeowners, now and in the future, “are paying more federal income tax in order to help corporations pay less federal income tax,” writes Sloan.

Now for some better government news: The Department of Veterans Affairs has paid out more than $400 million in refunds to borrowers who overpaid their home-loan-funding fees.

The returns stem from an inspector general’s finding that military personnel who used their VA benefits to buy houses were charged extra fees at closing. The fees involved some clerical errors, but for the most part, borrowers were simply charged too much. The IG found at least 53,000 cases where borrowers were overcharged one way or another.

The VA reviewed 130,000 loans going back 20 years. “Our administration prioritized fixing the problems, and paid veterans what they were owed,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie.

The total payout was “significantly above” the nearly $290 million investigators estimated earlier this year. Refunds ranged from a few thousand dollars to more than $20,000.

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission is in the process of mailing some 8,000 refund checks, totaling nearly $2.7 million, to timeshare owners who paid upfront fees to Pro Timeshare Resales to help sell their unwanted vacation-home weeks.

The average payback is $332. Unfortunately, Pro Timeshare charged customers $2,500 or more, in advance, on the false promise that it had a buyer or renter ready to buy or rent their properties for a specified price. In other instances, the company falsely promised to sell the timeshares quickly, sometimes within a specified time period.

At the same time, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection has sued a “flipping system” purveyor for making false claims that its program on buying houses on the cheap and reselling them at big profits involves little risk, time or effort. Like most such affirmations, it just isn’t so.

The company in question, Zurixx, promised people who attended their free seminars that they could generate substantial income by flipping houses. It often used celebrities from popular home renovation television shows to lure its marks to free seminars, where the outfit showed supposed “success stories” of customers who claimed they made thousands using the system.

But, according to the FTC and DCP, the free event is just a scheme to get people to buy Zurixx’s three-day “risk-free” beginners’ workshop, which costs $1,997. Presenters also tried to upsell advanced programs that totaled $41,297.

To pay for the programs, the complaint also alleges, the company told attendees to obtain new credit cards, or to increase the credit limits on existing cards, supposedly to help finance real estate deals.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. This is just the latest example of similar rip-offs by get-rich-quick scam artists.

Last year, for example, a federal court dismissed a suit by students of Armando Montelongo, the one-time host of the A&E series “Flip This House,” alleging that he and three of his companies engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The court ruled that the accusers failed to meet the standards required by the RICO Act.

But the plaintiffs aren’t going away. Now numbering more than 420, they have re-filed their suit, this time in Texas, where Montelongo is headquartered. Montelongo has countersued.

While those cases play out, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah has issued a temporary restraining order against Zurixx and affiliated companies.

Warns the FTC: “If someone promises that you can earn a lot of money with little risk, time or effort, that’s a sign of a scam.”

Most buyers, understandably, would want to know if a violent death occurred in the houses they are considering. And as it turns out, most states require sellers to divulge the fact that a suicide, murder or some other villainous act took place, even if it was years ago.

But what if someone died a more natural death in the residence -- say, by accident, or in his or her sleep?

Since it’s not considered a “material fact” that may impact the value of the property, only three states -- California, Alaska and South Dakota -- compel sellers to reveal such a demise. And California only requires such disclosures if the death occurred within the previous three years.

Still, it is interesting to note at Halloween time that 7 out of 10 people told a poll commissioned by Trulia a couple of years back that they would not want to live in a house where any kind of life-ending event took place. Would-be buyers are even more spooked by the idea of residing in places where the death was gory. And they’re especially fearful of houses that are supposedly haunted by a former resident. But for the most part, they don’t want anything to do with any place in which someone passed away.

Even though most sellers don’t feel the need to disclose this kind of information, most real estate agents know it is their duty to do so. Otherwise they might violate not only their code of ethics, but also the law.

While most agents do what’s right, some believe the rules have gone too far.

“What’s next?” questioned a Pennsylvania agent. “Are you going to disclose if anyone (passed gas), cut themselves or had a pet buried in the backyard? ... What if the person died on the front lawn and not in the house?” As far he’s concerned, all this amounts to too much information. “Buyers should focus on the condition of the house” rather then if someone died there, he said.

A Florida agent agreed. “I tend to think that unless there is blood on the walls, the homeowners and the home’s value shouldn’t be penalized for being the locale where the circle of life comes around and wraps up,” he said.

A discussion of this sort pops up almost annually at this time of year, when our thoughts turn to All Hallows Eve and house-hunting becomes a tad scarier. Sellers may be worried that the specter of specters will spook potential buyers, and buyers are concerned about sharing their new homes with unwanted paranormal residents.

I mean, have you seen “Beetlejuice,” the wonderful 1988 Tim Burton film starring Michael Keaton?

In its 2017 poll, Trulia found that 43 percent of respondents would be less likely to buy a home if they suspected something ghastly -- or ghostly -- had taken place on the premises. And an earlier Trulia Halloween-centric survey found that a crime of any kind would be likely to turn off would-be buyers, even in a house “that otherwise has everything” someone is looking for. (About 2,000 people were surveyed in both online studies, which were done for Trulia by Harris Poll.)

A house being located near a highway or trailer park are other big turnoffs -- more so than the death of a resident or the “demon numbers” 666 in the address. But the majority wouldn’t care if the place they loved was adjacent to a cemetery. Indeed, once such situated resident told me that, save for some high-school and college kids who occasionally found the graveyard an ideal place to party, his neighbors were extremely quiet.

Trulia also discovered that if a house was haunted, buyers would rather it be possessed by a vengeful ghost than a demon. And, apparently, they’d be willing to live with the antics of the poltergeist: Less than half would be willing to pay for an exorcism.

For what it’s worth, a rather chilling 2015 study by data analytics firm RealtyTrac found more than 22,000 vacant single-family houses nationwide that are owned by someone now deceased. That’s 1 in every 6,000 houses nationwide that very well could be haunted. And in more than 20 ZIP codes, the ratio is roughly 1 in every 175.

If you are one of the many who are concerned about this sort of thing, there’s an app for that -- or at least a website. Isn’t there always?

For $11.99, Diedinhouse.com will tell you whether there was a death in a house, whether it was because of an accident, natural causes, murder or suicide. The site also provides information about the deceased and the names of folks associated with the dearly departed. It will also report on any known drug activity or fires at the address, as well as sex-offender registry information.

On the other hand, HomeDisclosure.com, a site operated by realty analytics firm ATTOM Data Solutions, no longer provides information about in-home deaths. “The cost of maintaining that data was greater than the delivery,” a company spokesperson told me.

Long ago, comedian George Carlin made a name for himself with a bit about the seven words that could not be said on television. Nowadays, you can hear all of those words on cable, and many of them on broadcast TV.

But some real estate professionals say there are still some words neither their colleagues nor their clients should use in their listings. These phrases and terms are so overused that they have become meaningless, agents complained in a recent ActiveRain discussion.

Take the phrase “motivated seller,” for example. Hey, if you aren’t motivated to sell, you shouldn’t have listed your house in the first place.

That phrase is “counterproductive,” says Morgan Evans, an agent with Douglas Elliman Real Estate in New York City, who believes it is better to “communicate in person that if the buyer likes the property, then the owner may be open-minded to an offer.”

Scott Godzyk of Godzyk Real Estate Services in Manchester, New Hampshire, doesn’t like it, either. If the owner is so motivated, he says, he should have priced the home correctly in the first place.

“I’d rather lower the price than announce we are ‘motivated,’” adds Steven Beam of RE/MAX Alliance in Parker, Colorado.

Says Myrl Jeffcoat of GreatWest Realty in Sacramento: “’Motivated’ needs to be stricken from the multiple listing service lexicon.”

That’s the thing with phrases like this: They are so shopworn that agents tend to ignore them altogether.

“Will not last” is another unworthy phrase. Nina Hollander of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Shirley Coomer of Keller Williams Realty in Phoenix both call it “the kiss of death.”

“If it’s not going to last,” asks Anna Kruchten of the Phoenix Property Shoppe, “then why has it been on the market for four months with no takers? So lame.”

Adds Jill Sackler of Charles Rutenberg Realty in Long Beach, New York: “’Will not last’ is a phrase we can all do without.”

“I have yet to see an MLS entry that states ‘owner unmotivated’ or ‘will look at offers when we feel like it,’” says Juan Juarez of Keller Williams in Fremont, California. “Some things are to obvious to state, yet we see that stuff constantly.”

By the way, if your place has been on the market for more than a few months -- or maybe even a few weeks -- ask your agent to redo your listing. “I’ve never understood why agents don’t go back and rewrite their MLS listings and change pictures around when a house lingers,” comments Debe Maxwell of RE/MAX Executive in Charlotte.

Two other hackneyed phrases that ruffle pros’ feathers include “almost new” and “will look at all offers.”

There is no degree of new; it’s either new or it isn’t. If a house was lived in for one day, it is no longer new. Better to say “like new.” And if you are not going to entertain all offers, why bother? Otherwise, agents say, you are telling everyone your place is overpriced to begin with.

Colorado agent Bean thinks he knows why many agents have become so verbose with meaningless phraseology. With so much space allowed by the latest MLS technology, he says, agents can type till their fingers fall off.

Perhaps that’s why Ralph Gorgoglione of Maui Life Homes in Hawaii hates what he calls “corny, cheesy phrases.” Such as this one he spotted recently: “As you walk through the front door, bestowed upon you will be a thing of beauty.” Or this: “As you step through the walls of glass ...”

Joe Pryor of Oklahoma (City) Investment Properties has some favorites, too. Among them are “Show your picky buyers,” “a real dollhouse” and “snooze, you lose.”

Of course, words do matter, as shown in a 20-year-old study of 20,000 Canadian houses listed and sold between 1997 and 2000. If a listing contained the word “motivated,” the house took 15% longer to sell and sold for 8% less than the original asking price, found the study by Paul Anglin, a professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario. And if it was described as a rental property, it took 60% longer and resulted in an 8% drop in asking price.

Other words had a positive impact. When “landscaping” was mentioned, the house sold 20% faster and at 6% over the listing price. The words “beautiful” and “move-in condition” also resulted in faster selling times.

As for selling prices, the study found that certain words could increase the selling price by as much as 6% -- or cause it to fall by as much as 10%. Thus, the price on a $250,000 house could rise to $265,000 (a 6% increase) when described as “landscaped,” or drop 10% to $225,000 if designated a “starter home.”