Yet another Ebay sap..

Page 3 of 3  
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message 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-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equitable

See above.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message wrote:

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-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Tom Veatch> wrote in message

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-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:26:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall wrote:

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.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snippage>

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........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin M. Vernon wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:38:38 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon

However, the thread is about property taxes and, as far as I know, congress does not hit us up with property taxes.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
amazing yes.. but why does it annoy you? why would it be any of your business what someone pays for anything
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item 0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Why annoy? It's their money; what they do with it is their business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.