"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:atq%[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=150177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>>
>> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
>> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
>> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
>
> I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my
> house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth.
>
L:
At least where I am, the tax assessor can be talked out of a "decline in
value form". If you make
a convincing show, based on the condition of your house and the recent sale
price of comparable
residences whose location and, better yet, condition you document
photographically, you can
get a refund of that over-assessed part of the taxable value and reset your
tax base. If you do
a rational, thourough job here, dispute is unlikely and you still have
recourse to an appeals hearing before
a board if you feel the initial decision is wrong. Look for recent sales at
the assessor's office or try
www.zillow.com .
Regards,
Edward Hennessey
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <atq%[email protected]>, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=15
>>0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>>>
>>> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
>>> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
>>> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
>>
>>I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my
>>house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth.
>
> LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in
> Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy
> any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it.
>
Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:26:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>In fairness Tom, there are probably points that I did indeed miss, as I
>joined this thread late in its life. Sorry if anything I throw out may be
>already covered.
>
>I agree with your point in the second paragraph above, but that by itself is
>somewhat disassociated with how either of us use the term "equitable", or
>like discussions on the merit of the current property tax formula.
To be honest, Mike, I'm not sure that there is any taxation scheme
that is "equitable", that is, fair and balanced across the entire
population, or by any other objective definition. Certainly not from
the perception of the person who has to fork over the money.
As a first thought, and presented simply as a jumping off point for
discussion, the concept of "user fee" seems to approach most closely
my idea of "fair and equitable" taxation. Those who use the service
should be the ones who pay the cost of the service. If I go into a
doughnut shop and get a doughnut, I'm the one who pays, not the person
who happens to be walking along the sidewalk outside the shop. Why
should government services be different?
Of course that leaves open the big question of "Who is the user?". Is
the criminal the "user" of the police service, or is the general
population that is protected (debatable) from the criminal the "user"?
Is the person whose property is ablaze the "user" of the Fire
Department, or is the neighbor whose property is endangered by the
fire the "user"?
I believe any general fund taxation based solely on the value of a
property, whether that property be "real property" or an income stream
is "inequitable" since it focuses on an assumed "ability to pay"
rather than focusing on what generates the cost and applying the tax
burden to those cost generators. An ad valorem property tax might be
appropriate for support of Fire Departments since the risk to the
owner (assumed use of the system) can be considered to be in direct
proportion to the value of the property. Ad valorem taxation for the
support of "Parks and Recreation" is inequitable since there is no
correlation between the value of a person's property and their use of
the service.
In my opinion, the tax on highway fuels is one tax that approaches an
"equitable" classification. Ignoring the efficiency of government in
applying those funds, this is a case of the user of the service (the
highway system) is the one who pays the bill. If you don't drive on
the highway, you don't pay the "highway tax" - at least not directly.
Commercial transportation firms include the taxes they pay in the
tariff they charge their customer who pays the bill as the beneficiary
of and "end user" of the highway/transportation system.
No matter how the payment pie is sliced, someone is going to be the
one whose ox is gored. But, I guess what annoys me the most, and has
been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, are those professional
politicians who feel my pocketbook is an appropriate source of funds
for them to use to buy re-election.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <atq%[email protected]>, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=15
>>>0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>>>>
>>>> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
>>>> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
>>>> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
>>>
>>>I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my
>>>house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth.
>>
>> LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in
>> Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy
>> any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it.
>>
>
> Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it.
One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society
where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone
was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:52:04 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
>>>>>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
>>>>>ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
>>>>>payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.
>>>>
>>>> And a lot don't, too.
>>>
>>>I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack
>>>for
>>>you...
>>>
>>>For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
>>>many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
>>>to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
>>>that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
>>>previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
>>>informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the
>>>child
>>>raising stage of life.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just being old should
>>>>>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>>>>>has decided to spend society's money.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
>>>
>>>This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
>>>point on this one...
>>>
>>>"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in
>>>the
>>>previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
>>>people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
>>>people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
>>>like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
>>>because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
>>>impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
>>>then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
>>>(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
>>>ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.
>>
>> Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
>> I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
>> ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
>> because you are old you should automatically pay LESS. Being old does
>> not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes. Being
>> poor, at any age, may be such a reason.
>
>No - you said that a large percentage have a greater ability to pay ("but in
>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better ability
>to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car payments, kids to
>raise and colleges to pay for"). I disagreed with this broad
>generalization. Being old is not what resulted in a lower property tax
>payment as was I believe, the point at hand. It is not a matter of paying
>less because of age.
In many areas there is indeed a specific exemption in property taxes
for those over a certain age, regardless of wealth, income or any
other measurement of "ability" to pay. This exemtion was addressed in
this thread, I believe, in the message that I was directly responding
to when I first posted. My point was and still is that if you own a
$100,000 house and are age 65 and earn $75,000 a year (including
pensions, investment income, social security and any wages) and I own
a $100,000 house and am age 50 with a total income of $75,000
(including all sources as above) and we both live in the same
community, I do not see why you should pay a lower property tax than I
simply due to the age difference. In most cases the generalization
made in support of passing these blanket exemptions is that the "poor
retiiree" is living on a "fixed income". In reality it is because a
much higher percentage of people over 65 vote than those of a younger
age (shame on those youngsters). They are in fact a "special interest"
such as those that you take umbrage to later on in your response. My
statement was that older folks are often painted as being unable to
shoulder the burden (a painting they often brush oin themselves) when
in fact many are at least as able to shoulder the burden as those
folks of somewhat lesser years with similar total incomes. I stick by
that assertion in the context presented. I do not assert that because
a younger family person has family cost responsibilities that they
should get any tax reduction, just that they should not be penalized.
>
>
>>
>> I also did not imply that all money belong's to society. However,
>> society does (via its laws and people's votes) decide how they want to
>> spend money.
>
>And societies get out of hand with their desires and expectations too.
>Simply because society (really, a portion of that society) may have a whim,
>does not justify that whim.
We all vote for the folks that have the authority to act or choose
not to act on that whim.
>> They (really meaning us as a society) then must get that
>> money from us citizens.
>
>Society is the citizenry. The problem really stems from the fact that
>society does not make these decisions. Special interests makes these
>decisions. School Boards decide upon what you'll pay in school taxes (the
>fox guarding the hen house),
Who elected them???
politicians empowered to spend your money
>decide on how much money you'll pay in taxes (that fox again), etc.
Who elected them????
>> Instead of us always focusing on how "they"
>> are going to get that money from us, maybe we should focus on why "we"
>> are spending so much of it.
>
>Agreed - but that is different from the initial statement that I responded
>to.
>
>> To debate how to raise the money is simply
>> an excercise in trying to make the other guy pay for the stuff that we
>> all (via our freely elected government) seem to want government to buy
>> for us.
>
>There is no real association between what "we all want" and an elected
>government.
Who elected them??? They did not get into power by some birthright,
"society" chose these leaders. "Society" chose the structures by which
we are governed. I also have problems with what elected officials and
governing bodies choose to do, but I cannot divorce myself from them -
I am part of the citizenry that selected them whether I like it or
not.
>> By the way, my house is paid for, my kids are grown and out of
>> college, my grandsons are a joy that I wish we weren't saddling with
>> all of our deficit spending, and I am still working and paying taxes
>> (federal, state, county, municipal and school).
>>
>
>You old fart...
Getting older (and fartier) by the day as my wife (who is 3 months
younger than I) loves to point out - especially during the 3 months
during which I and "a year older" than her ;-)
Dave Hall
J. Clarke wrote:
> Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
>
>>"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>><some snippage>
>>
>>>>>LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes
>>>>>here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax
>>>>>assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner
>>>>>wishes to sell it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it.
>>>
>>>One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about
>>>a
>>>society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner.
>>>However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently
>>>assessed value.
>>>
>>
>>Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one
>>wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that
>>valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that
>>listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner
>>immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective
>>buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years
>>back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the
>>valuations fairly honest.
>>
>>Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your
>>tax
>>rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>>the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for
>>it.
>
>
> That's kind of how it works (or worked at one time) in California.
> For long-time residents it becomes a trap--relocate and you have to
> either downsize _way_ down or take a big tax increase.
>
But you know what your tax will be and can decide on the purchase
accordingly. If you buy, you can budget your tax bill for as long as
you own the house. Before Prop 13 (initiative that set the tax plan),
my assessed valuation/tax bill had tripled and was about to double
again. Now I had a question of whether I could pay the taxes and still
buy milk and beer. Great solution for homeowners. The effect on
commercial properties is not so good for the state. ...
rant off,
jo4hn
[email protected] wrote:
>>I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of
>> 67% to well over 150% have been fairly common.
>
> Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is
> hot. When it goes into the shitter (like now) they should also
> reasses. Taxes should fluctuate with the market. If the value of my
> house goes down so should my taxes.
But that would mean less money for the politicians to use for buying
votes. There aren't very many politicians or government entities willing
to do with *less* money; it never occurs to them to cut expenses, only to
find other sources of revenue.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Doug Miller wrote:
> That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different
> types of
> taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship
> whatever to
> the taxpayer's ability to pay -- leading to retirees being forced to
> sell
> homes they've owned for decades, because they can't afford the taxes
> on a
> property that has appreciated substantially since they bought it.
At least here in Washington State, for a primary residence there is a
serious property tax exemption for lower income seniors.....It is a
nefarious plot to get their votes on school levy's...vote yes for the tax,
feel good about helping the deprived children and the schools and it still
won't cost you anything<G>. Rod
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
... snip
>>
>>>Just being old should
>>>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>>>has decided to spend society's money.
>>
>> Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
>
> This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
> point on this one...
>
> "has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in
> the
> previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
> people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
> people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
> like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
> because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
> impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
> then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
> (older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
> ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.
>
>
Thank-you for that very cogent and absolutely spot-on assessment. This
attitude and idea that it is "society's" money is quite frightening as it
implies a certain entitlement mindset; i.e, there is a certain amount of a
country's wealth and prosperity that should be used as some ruling entity
determines vs. the idea that a society and country requires a certain level
of government activity to allow private endeavors to prosper but that
amount should be the absolute minimum required to allow government to
perform its most basic functions.
Evidence of this is apparent in such things as one of Hillary's recent
speeches were, when speaking about oil companies' profits she made the
comment, "When I'm president, I'm going to take those profits and use them
to fund health care, .... " That is an entitlement mindset, seeking to
reap from the work of others and use it to buy a dependency class votes
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:25:22 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=150177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>
>What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
>than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
>collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
1. ignorance of the true value of the item.
2. caught up in the "excitement" of the bidding.
3. mistaken idea that if you post the highest bid, then somehow you
"win". Otherwise you "lose". Competitiveness run wild.
4. incremental bidding instead of posting your maximum bid as the
first bid. (Oh, I guess I can up my bid a couple of dollars so I can
"win".)
5. pure stupidity for indulging in any of the above.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:I...
>
> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
Since you're an expert on purchases, I suppose that you know how
much the plane costs new in France, where the buyer is located? And
since you're the expert on purchases, I'm sure you'll claim that it's
just as easy & cheap to have a new item shipped across the border
as it is a used one.
Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
*snip*
> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>
> -Kevin in Indy
> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and
she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my
property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government.
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Puckdropper wrote:
>> Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your
>>> tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the
>>> property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE
>>> paid for it.
>>>
>>> -Kevin in Indy
>>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
>>
>> The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and
>> she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and
>> my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for
>> government.
>>
> Then, the gov would come along and tell you they need to put an off
> ramp where your property is, and since it's only worth a buck...
It's an awful funny place for an off ramp... Imagine a mound of dirt,
new asphalt, nicely painted lines, starting off in a field and ending
there.
That's the problem with going by the last sold price. Now, that's not
to say that last sold price shouldn't play a role in the assessment of
the property's value. Perhaps use it as a beginning point rather than
an end point.
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:38:38 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><snippage>
>
>>>
>>>Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
>>>OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
>>
>>In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
>>just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
>>won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
>>someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
>>not taxes.
>>
> The BEST way to force the CongressCritters to control spending, is to
>reduce...nay, DRASTICALLY reduce their revenue stream.
>
>Tax imports...and consumption. NOT income & property.
>
>-Kevin in Indy
>To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
However, the thread is about property taxes and, as far as I know,
congress does not hit us up with property taxes.
Dave Hall
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:Z1_%[email protected]...
>>>
>>> That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types
>>> of
>>> taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever
>>> to
>>> the taxpayer's ability to pay
>>
>>THAT makes sense to you? I thought it was to pay for government services,
>>though I don't see the folks on municipal water helping when my pump goes
>>on
>>the fritz, while I subsidize them.
>>
> The point is that it's hardly fair to assess a tax on someone who lacks
> the
> ability to pay it.
Marx would be proud.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:43:44 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Not around here unless you're quick. Re-evaluation is done every four
>years. I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of
>67% to well over 150% have been fairly common.
Same here except the appraised/assessed value increases every year,
along with the mill levy. I'd love to have a 4 year cycle. I'm now
paying taxes on an appraised value that is 63% greater than the
original appraisal and the effective mill levy has increased enough to
make the tax bill double what it was when we had the house built.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:I...
>
> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
Why annoy? It's their money; what they do with it is their business.
"Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
<some snippage>
>>>
>>> LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in
>>> Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy
>>> any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it.
>>>
>>
>> Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it.
>
>One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society
>where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone
>was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value.
>
Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one
wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that
valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that
listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner
immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective
buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years
back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the
valuations fairly honest.
Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:17:15 -0500, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
>just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
>won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
>someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
>not taxes
I agree the spending should be addressed. But, assume the spending is
cut in half and you're still facing the problem of how to equitably
spread the tax load to support that reduced level of spending.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
amazing yes..
but why does it annoy you?
why would it be any of your business what someone pays
for anything
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=150177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>
> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LOr%[email protected]...
> LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in
> Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy
> any
> house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it.
>
Kalifornia's prop 13, Michigan's Headlee both limited the rise to rate of
inflation. Doesn't mean a lot, because they make up their public sector
raises elsewhere. Of course it's always "the children" when it comes to
"cuts" which aren't. Never ceases to amaze me how the papers report,
without comment, such stupidity as "severe cutback in services" followed, in
the next line, by "no jobs will be lost due to cutbacks." Sounds like one
of the e-by bargain hunters, may be just be part of a bigger pool of suckers
doesn't it?
In article <atq%[email protected]>, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=15
>0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>>
>> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
>> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
>> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
>
>I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my
>house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth.
LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in
Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any
house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
>>>>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
>>>>ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
>>>>payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.
>>>
>>> And a lot don't, too.
>>
>>I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack
>>for
>>you...
>>
>>For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
>>many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
>>to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
>>that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
>>previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
>>informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the
>>child
>>raising stage of life.
>>
>>>
>>>>Just being old should
>>>>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>>>>has decided to spend society's money.
>>>
>>> Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
>>
>>This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
>>point on this one...
>>
>>"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in
>>the
>>previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
>>people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
>>people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
>>like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
>>because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
>>impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
>>then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
>>(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
>>ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.
>
> Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
> I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
> ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
> because you are old you should automatically pay LESS. Being old does
> not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes. Being
> poor, at any age, may be such a reason.
No - you said that a large percentage have a greater ability to pay ("but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better ability
to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car payments, kids to
raise and colleges to pay for"). I disagreed with this broad
generalization. Being old is not what resulted in a lower property tax
payment as was I believe, the point at hand. It is not a matter of paying
less because of age.
>
> I also did not imply that all money belong's to society. However,
> society does (via its laws and people's votes) decide how they want to
> spend money.
And societies get out of hand with their desires and expectations too.
Simply because society (really, a portion of that society) may have a whim,
does not justify that whim.
> They (really meaning us as a society) then must get that
> money from us citizens.
Society is the citizenry. The problem really stems from the fact that
society does not make these decisions. Special interests makes these
decisions. School Boards decide upon what you'll pay in school taxes (the
fox guarding the hen house), politicians empowered to spend your money
decide on how much money you'll pay in taxes (that fox again), etc.
> Instead of us always focusing on how "they"
> are going to get that money from us, maybe we should focus on why "we"
> are spending so much of it.
Agreed - but that is different from the initial statement that I responded
to.
> To debate how to raise the money is simply
> an excercise in trying to make the other guy pay for the stuff that we
> all (via our freely elected government) seem to want government to buy
> for us.
There is no real association between what "we all want" and an elected
government.
> By the way, my house is paid for, my kids are grown and out of
> college, my grandsons are a joy that I wish we weren't saddling with
> all of our deficit spending, and I am still working and paying taxes
> (federal, state, county, municipal and school).
>
You old fart...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
>I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
>ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
>because you are old you should automatically pay LESS.
Nobody said that.
>Being old does
>not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes.
Nobody said that, either.
>Being
>poor, at any age, may be such a reason.
>
>I also did not imply that all money belong's to society.
The phrase "society's money" does indeed imply just that. Neither "society"
nor government has any money of its own. It's my money, your money, his money
-- our money as *individuals*. Whatever the government has, it has only
because it took it from us as individuals.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>
>>>I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
>>>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
>>>ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
>>>payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.
>>
>> And a lot don't, too.
>
>I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack for
>you...
>
>For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
>many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
>to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
>that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
>previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
>informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the child
>raising stage of life.
>
>>
>>>Just being old should
>>>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>>>has decided to spend society's money.
>>
>> Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
>
>This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
>point on this one...
>
>"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in the
>previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
>people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
>people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
>like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
>because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
>impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
>then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
>(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
>ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.
Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
because you are old you should automatically pay LESS. Being old does
not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes. Being
poor, at any age, may be such a reason.
I also did not imply that all money belong's to society. However,
society does (via its laws and people's votes) decide how they want to
spend money. They (really meaning us as a society) then must get that
money from us citizens. Instead of us always focusing on how "they"
are going to get that money from us, maybe we should focus on why "we"
are spending so much of it. To debate how to raise the money is simply
an excercise in trying to make the other guy pay for the stuff that we
all (via our freely elected government) seem to want government to buy
for us. By the way, my house is paid for, my kids are grown and out of
college, my grandsons are a joy that I wish we weren't saddling with
all of our deficit spending, and I am still working and paying taxes
(federal, state, county, municipal and school).
Dave Hall
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Z1_%[email protected]...
>
> That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types
> of
> taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever
> to
> the taxpayer's ability to pay
THAT makes sense to you? I thought it was to pay for government services,
though I don't see the folks on municipal water helping when my pump goes on
the fritz, while I subsidize them.
In article <[email protected]>, Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types of
taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever to
the taxpayer's ability to pay -- leading to retirees being forced to sell
homes they've owned for decades, because they can't afford the taxes on a
property that has appreciated substantially since they bought it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=150177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI
>
> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
> than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique
> collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy.
I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my
house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth.
Dave Hall wrote:
.. snip
>>I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes
>>that I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm
>>required to, and not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone
>>else into paying the taxes.
> But the whole discussion has been about people considering tax
> structures that end up with them paying less taxes. By definition they
> are then talking about how to make other people pay more in taxes.
>
Why should that be the case? Isn't about time to start demanding that the
government make do with the money it is already receiving and to live
within those means?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike, in case you missed it, the point was that dealing with the
> spending side of the equation does not solve any problems associated
> with the collecting side of the equation. Unless, of course, the
> spending is reduced to zero.
>
> If government spends X amount of money, cutting the expenditure to 1/2
> X, 1/4 X, 1/100000 X doesn't address any problems associated with
> collecting those funds, however much the total may be.
>
In fairness Tom, there are probably points that I did indeed miss, as I
joined this thread late in its life. Sorry if anything I throw out may be
already covered.
I agree with your point in the second paragraph above, but that by itself is
somewhat disassociated with how either of us use the term "equitable", or
like discussions on the merit of the current property tax formula.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Define "equitable".
>
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equitable
>
>
>>Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable,
>>or
>>more convenient for you - at this point in your life.
>
> See above.
The reason that I asked what your definition was Tom, is that the dictionary
definition as pointed to by you, does not match your application of that
term in my opinion.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> But the whole discussion has been about people considering tax
>structures that end up with them paying less taxes. By definition they
>are then talking about how to make other people pay more in taxes.
Wrong.
You fail to consider the alternative: talking about reducing government
spending so that *everybody* pays less in taxes.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Define "equitable".
>
>Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable, or
>more convenient for you - at this point in your life.
>
>--
>
>-Mike-
>[email protected]
Mike, in case you missed it, the point was that dealing with the
spending side of the equation does not solve any problems associated
with the collecting side of the equation. Unless, of course, the
spending is reduced to zero.
If government spends X amount of money, cutting the expenditure to 1/2
X, 1/4 X, 1/100000 X doesn't address any problems associated with
collecting those funds, however much the total may be.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:44:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his
>>>>house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because
>>>>I have only lved in my house for 10 years.
>>>
>>>Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price
>>>for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals
>>>and tax assessments are only guesses.
>>>
>>>Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated
>>>significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it
>>>ain't necessarily so.
>>
>>Well, I guess that I assume that in a world with an active market
>>(which is true in most of the country, but could be wrong in some
>>lightly populated areas) it is pretty easy to compute a reasonably
>>accurate assessment
>
>One would suppose so, yes. In practice, it normally doesn't work out that way,
>suggesting that either the assumption is flawed or the assessors are idiots.
>Maybe both.
Again, if in an active market your assessors are not getting pretty
close, it is a political problem since it ain't rocket science. Even
every little real estate agent gets pretty damn close when pricing
houses.
>> and since most jurisdictions provide for an appeal
>>process, I assume the overall assessment process is reasonably fair.
>
>That's *definitely* not a valid assumption.
Political problem again, must be bad judges if they allow gross over
assessments when you bring valid sales data and comparable property
data to the appeal.
>
>>If it isn't in your part of the world, that is a political problem,
>>not a problem with the concept.
>
>IMO it's a problem with both: it's easier to distort a process that's flawed
>to begin with.
>
>>However, to put a possibly clearer
>>description on my point, "I see no reason why my neighbor who has" a
>>house just like mine with the same actual market value as mine
>
>Assumption!
>
>>but who
>>has"lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than
>>me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years".
>
>But until the house sells, you _don't_know_ what its actual market value is.
Again, if there is any market at all you do "know", at least as well
as you know the earth is round, that the sun will rise in the morning
and that congress will do something stupid the next time it meets. All
are assumptions, but pretty solidly based in experience.
>>
>>I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
>>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
>>ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
>>payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.
>
>And a lot don't, too.
>
>>Just being old should
>>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>>has decided to spend society's money.
>
>Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
Poor has nothing to do with age or how long someone has owned a home.
>>If the argument would truly be
>>about equitable distribution of the tax burden then it would be a good
>>discussion, but it is pretty much always about how the person talking
>>can screw someone else into paying the taxes.
>
>I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes that
>I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm required to, and
>not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone else into paying the
>taxes.
But the whole discussion has been about people considering tax
structures that end up with them paying less taxes. By definition they
are then talking about how to make other people pay more in taxes.
>>The best debate would be
>>about how much society should actually be spending and only then an
>>equitable distribution of the burden.
>
>Oh, absolutely. Seems these days everybody wants all kinds of spending, but
>nobody wants to pay for it.
AMEN, brother!
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Define "equitable".
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equitable
>Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable, or
>more convenient for you - at this point in your life.
See above.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Nov 17, 12:28 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >>I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of
> >> 67% to well over 150% have been fairly common.
>
> > Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is
> > hot. When it goes into the shitter (like now) they should also
> > reasses. Taxes should fluctuate with the market. If the value of my
> > house goes down so should my taxes.
>
> But that would mean less money for the politicians to use for buying
> votes. There aren't very many politicians or government entities willing
> to do with *less* money; it never occurs to them to cut expenses, only to
> find other sources of revenue.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Actually, they do a revision of the taxes, too, but, as yet, we're not
sure how we'll come out on the next swat in the wallet. My guess is,
northeasterners will still head this way, because taxes tend to be
about 20% to 30% of what they are in Joisey, NY, CT and such places.
As the tax bill rises here, it rises by even more up there.
Of course, as we get all these people down here who want sidewalks,
streetlights, cops on every corner (we've pretty much got that, as
Bedford County is seriously over-copped), "free" garbage pick-up,
better schools (AKA as more highly paid teachers and more expensive
buildings, and more of both), and such city niceties, the taxes will
rise accordingly. I watched this shit happen 50 years ago in
Westchester County, and Bedford and Franklin Counties are going the
same way, but without the solid base of NYC to accept the daytime
workers.
>I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of
> 67% to well over 150% have been fairly common.
Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is
hot. When it goes into the shitter (like now) they should also
reasses. Taxes should fluctuate with the market. If the value of my
house goes down so should my taxes.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
>>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
>>ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
>>payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.
>
> And a lot don't, too.
I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack for
you...
For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the child
raising stage of life.
>
>>Just being old should
>>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>>has decided to spend society's money.
>
> Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
point on this one...
"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in the
previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Nov 17, 4:41 am, Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <some snippage>
>
>
>
> >>> LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in
> >>> Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy
> >>> any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it.
>
> >> Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it.
>
> >One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society
> >where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone
> >was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value.
>
> Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one
> wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that
> valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that
> listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner
> immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective
> buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years
> back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the
> valuations fairly honest.
>
> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>
> -Kevin in Indy
> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
Not around here unless you're quick. Re-evaluation is done every four
years. I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of
67% to well over 150% have been fairly common.
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:17:15 -0500, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
>>just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
>>won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
>>someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
>>not taxes
>
>
> I agree the spending should be addressed. But, assume the spending is
> cut in half and you're still facing the problem of how to equitably
> spread the tax load to support that reduced level of spending.
>
Define "equitable".
Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable, or
more convenient for you - at this point in your life.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
> "Dan Coby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <some snippage>
>
>>>>
>>>> LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes
>>>> here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax
>>>> assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner
>>>> wishes to sell it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it.
>>
>> One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about
>> a
>> society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner.
>> However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently
>> assessed value.
>>
>
> Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one
> wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that
> valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that
> listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner
> immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective
> buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years
> back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the
> valuations fairly honest.
>
> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your
> tax
> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for
> it.
That's kind of how it works (or worked at one time) in California.
For long-time residents it becomes a trap--relocate and you have to
either downsize _way_ down or take a big tax increase.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
: Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one
: wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that
: valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that
: listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner
: immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective
: buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years
: back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the
: valuations fairly honest.
And it would tend to have a lot of people get displaced from their homes
by developers with deep pockets. No thanks.
: Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
: rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
: the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
There's some good thoughts there. Would help out a lot of old folks who get
taxed out of their homes when prices go up after 40 years.
-- Andy Barss
Dave Hall wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:08:00 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Puckdropper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> *snip*
>>>
>>>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your
>>>> tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the
>>>> property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price
>>>> HE
>>>> paid for it.
>>>>
>>>> -Kevin in Indy
>>>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
>>>
>>> The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1
>>> and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title
>>> fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad
>>> for government.
>>>
>>> Puckdropper
>>
>>
>> Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
>> OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
>
> In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
> just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
> won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
> someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
> not taxes.
If one person can think to do that then everyone can and pretty soon
book values will be nothing and the tax rate will have to be raised to
thousands of times the last selling price if the government is to have
the desired income.
>> After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving
>> whiskey
>> & car keys to 17 year olds.
>>
>> -Kevin in Indy
>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
> Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
>>>
>>> Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping
>>> money
>>> OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
>>
>> In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
>> just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
>> won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
>> someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about
>> spending,
>> not taxes.
>>
> The BEST way to force the CongressCritters to control spending, is
> to
> reduce...nay, DRASTICALLY reduce their revenue stream.
>
> Tax imports...and consumption. NOT income & property.
Which doesn't address the problem. The only way that government
spending will ever be brought under control is to separate the power
to tax and borrow from the power to spend. As long as the same people
control both they'll spend taxpayer money to buy votes until they've
bled the public dry.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his
>>>house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because
>>>I have only lved in my house for 10 years.
>>
>>Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price
>>for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals
>>and tax assessments are only guesses.
>>
>>Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated
>>significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it
>>ain't necessarily so.
>
>Well, I guess that I assume that in a world with an active market
>(which is true in most of the country, but could be wrong in some
>lightly populated areas) it is pretty easy to compute a reasonably
>accurate assessment
One would suppose so, yes. In practice, it normally doesn't work out that way,
suggesting that either the assumption is flawed or the assessors are idiots.
Maybe both.
> and since most jurisdictions provide for an appeal
>process, I assume the overall assessment process is reasonably fair.
That's *definitely* not a valid assumption.
>If it isn't in your part of the world, that is a political problem,
>not a problem with the concept.
IMO it's a problem with both: it's easier to distort a process that's flawed
to begin with.
>However, to put a possibly clearer
>description on my point, "I see no reason why my neighbor who has" a
>house just like mine with the same actual market value as mine
Assumption!
>but who
>has"lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than
>me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years".
But until the house sells, you _don't_know_ what its actual market value is.
>
>I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
>reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
>ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
>payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.
And a lot don't, too.
>Just being old should
>not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
>has decided to spend society's money.
Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
>If the argument would truly be
>about equitable distribution of the tax burden then it would be a good
>discussion, but it is pretty much always about how the person talking
>can screw someone else into paying the taxes.
I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes that
I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm required to, and
not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone else into paying the
taxes.
>The best debate would be
>about how much society should actually be spending and only then an
>equitable distribution of the burden.
Oh, absolutely. Seems these days everybody wants all kinds of spending, but
nobody wants to pay for it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Puckdropper <[email protected]> wrote:
>Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>*snip*
>
>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>>
>> -Kevin in Indy
>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
>
>The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and
>she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my
>property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government.
>
>Puckdropper
Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving whiskey &
car keys to 17 year olds.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
<snippage>
>>
>>Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
>>OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
>
>In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
>just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
>won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
>someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
>not taxes.
>
The BEST way to force the CongressCritters to control spending, is to
reduce...nay, DRASTICALLY reduce their revenue stream.
Tax imports...and consumption. NOT income & property.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:27:43 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is
>hot.
Are you sure? Most areas do it on a regular schedule, and the
assessor can usually tell you when you're due next.
It would seem that at-will reassessments would be a real political hot
button at election time.
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his
>>house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because
>>I have only lved in my house for 10 years.
>
>Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price
>for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals
>and tax assessments are only guesses.
>
>Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated
>significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it
>ain't necessarily so.
Well, I guess that I assume that in a world with an active market
(which is true in most of the country, but could be wrong in some
lightly populated areas) it is pretty easy to compute a reasonably
accurate assessment and since most jurisdictions provide for an appeal
process, I assume the overall assessment process is reasonably fair.
If it isn't in your part of the world, that is a political problem,
not a problem with the concept. However, to put a possibly clearer
description on my point, "I see no reason why my neighbor who has" a
house just like mine with the same actual market value as mine but who
has"lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than
me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years".
I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for. Just being old should
not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
has decided to spend society's money. If the argument would truly be
about equitable distribution of the tax burden then it would be a good
discussion, but it is pretty much always about how the person talking
can screw someone else into paying the taxes. The best debate would be
about how much society should actually be spending and only then an
equitable distribution of the burden.
Dave Hall
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Z1_%[email protected]...
>>
>> That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types
>> of
>> taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever
>> to
>> the taxpayer's ability to pay
>
>THAT makes sense to you? I thought it was to pay for government services,
>though I don't see the folks on municipal water helping when my pump goes on
>the fritz, while I subsidize them.
>
The point is that it's hardly fair to assess a tax on someone who lacks the
ability to pay it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
<[email protected]> wrote in message >
> What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher
> than the price for the new item?
Simple....some dumb ass out there will buy it.
On e-bay there is one born every 45 seconds
No, it would just be bad for honest taxpayers. What seems to be missed
in all of these discussions on how the property tax should be
structured is that they are just schemes to shove the tax off on
someone else. None of them have anything to do with the spending side
of the equation. I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his
house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because
I have only lved in my house for 10 years.
Dave Hall
On 18 Nov 2007 22:33:46 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>*snip*
>
>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>>
>> -Kevin in Indy
>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
>
>The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and
>she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my
>property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government.
>
>Puckdropper
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:08:00 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Puckdropper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>*snip*
>>
>>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>>> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>>> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>>>
>>> -Kevin in Indy
>>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
>>
>>The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and
>>she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my
>>property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government.
>>
>>Puckdropper
>
>
>Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
>OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
not taxes.
>After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving whiskey &
>car keys to 17 year olds.
>
>-Kevin in Indy
>To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
Puckdropper wrote:
> Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> *snip*
>
>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>>
>> -Kevin in Indy
>> To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
>
> The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and
> she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my
> property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government.
>
Then, the gov would come along and tell you they need to put an off ramp
where your property is, and since it's only worth a buck...
>> Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>> rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>> the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>>
Just for the sake of argument/illustration, assume two identical
houses in equivalent locations (ATSG, the three most important things
in real estate are location, location, and location). One has been
owned by the same person for many years and was purchased at the
market value existing at that time - say $100,000. The other was
purchased in the prevailing market last week for - say $200,000.
So, the owner of the first property pays half the taxes that are paid
by the owner of the second identical property. Something about that
seems a little inequitable to me.
I like the idea presented in Heinlein's Number of the Beast. I'm sure
there are methods that could be implemented to prevent deep-pocket
takeovers of contiguous properties.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>Kevin M. Vernon <[email protected]> wrote:
>:>
>
>: Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one
>: wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that
>: valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that
>: listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner
>: immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective
>: buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years
>: back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the
>: valuations fairly honest.
>
>
>And it would tend to have a lot of people get displaced from their homes
>by developers with deep pockets. No thanks.
>
>
As opposed to the way it is now, when people get displaced from their
home by developers with deep pockets - by simply shoveling that
deepness at the politicians in return for some eminent domain
legislation. Sure, that would happen in some cases. Any more than it
does now? I doubt it. But then I wasn't advocating that particular
scheme, simply fleshing out the details for the O.P. who brought it
up.
>
>: Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess are: Your tax
>: rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property
>: the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it.
>
>
>There's some good thoughts there. Would help out a lot of old folks who get
>taxed out of their homes when prices go up after 40 years.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
This one I do quite like. After all, an "Assesment" is simply an
estimate or guess of what your property might be worth, in someone's
opinion. It's worth what somebody will pay for it. Pay taxes on the
purchase price. Next guy that buys it - pays taxes on THAT purchase
price. It's not worth diddly poo, until you actually sell it for
something - and then whatever you sold it for is what it was worth.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his
>house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because
>I have only lved in my house for 10 years.
Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price
for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals
and tax assessments are only guesses.
Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated
significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it
ain't necessarily so.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.