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
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
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.
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........
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.
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
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
but why does it annoy you?
why would it be any of your business what someone pays
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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.