Kevin M. Vernon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
*snip*
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
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. Rod
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.
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
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...
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.
The point is that it's hardly fair to assess a tax on someone who lacks the ability to pay it.
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
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 $200,000.
So, the owner of the first property pays half the taxes that are paid by the owner of the second identical property. Something about that seems a little inequitable to me.
I like the idea presented in Heinlein's Number of the Beast. I'm sure there are methods that could be implemented to prevent deep-pocket takeovers of contiguous properties.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
One would suppose so, yes. In practice, it normally doesn't work out that way, suggesting that either the assumption is flawed or the assessors are idiots. Maybe both.
That's *definitely* not a valid assumption.
IMO it's a problem with both: it's easier to distort a process that's flawed to begin with.
Assumption!
But until the house sells, you _don't_know_ what its actual market value is.
And a lot don't, too.
Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.
I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes that I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm required to, and not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone else into paying the taxes.
Oh, absolutely. Seems these days everybody wants all kinds of spending, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.
After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving whiskey & car keys to 17 year olds.
-Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:sL30j.19953$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe11.phx:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poor has nothing to do with age or how long someone has owned a home.
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.
AMEN, brother!
.. snip
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?
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
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.
Marx would be proud.
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.
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........
HomeOwnersHub website 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.