| Author | Post |
|---|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21st, 2008 04:35 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
Ms. Reed,
Its a method of taxation called Land Value Taxation.
Here is a discussion of this method on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tax
As for disincentives... I take it you have been fortunate enough not to live next door to the guy who gilds the interior of his home with gold while he leaves the exterior of his home run-down to ensure that his valuation will not increase to avoid higher property tax bills??? I have lived next door to several people with this mindset.
I should admit that I am sympathetic - I would not want to pay higher property taxes as the result of a home improvement either - why should a home owner be penalized by higher property taxes when improving their home???
And, how would my home improvement effect the impact my family has on the local infrastructure??? It wouldn't, yet I would now be expected to contribute a greater share.
Is that fair???
Dear AJ:
I've been out of town and have only this morning had a chance to review your Wikipedia resource, thanks for the info. After I've had a chance to digest it's implications I'll post my tentative position concerning same.
I think that most valuations are based on an average price per square foot under roof (for a specific area), without regard to the exterior condition of the subject property.
Talk soon.
Regards,
AnneLast edited on Mon Apr 21st, 2008 04:40 pm by anne.reed
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 01:54 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote: aj,
It is the classic take from the rich and give to the poor attitude. Since you have more you should be FORCED to give more. But I have to agree that the county needs a certain amout of money to run its operations. How it collects that money is what irks many people. What is getting missed in this arguement is that the income side of the county is not the problem. It is the wasteful spending on things that the county should not be dealing with.
Actually, I had started another thread to discuss the spending issue and the proper functions of county government (http://www.newszapforums.com/forum26/57284.html) a while back, but so far I have seen little interest in that debate either.
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 01:32 pm |
|
aj,
It is the classic take from the rich and give to the poor attitude. Since you have more you should be FORCED to give more. But I have to agree that the county needs a certain amout of money to run its operations. How it collects that money is what irks many people. What is getting missed in this arguement is that the income side of the county is not the problem. It is the wasteful spending on things that the county should not be dealing with.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 04:52 am |
|
Ms. Reed,
Its a method of taxation called Land Value Taxation.
Here is a discussion of this method on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tax
As for disincentives... I take it you have been fortunate enough not to live next door to the guy who gilds the interior of his home with gold while he leaves the exterior of his home run-down to ensure that his valuation will not increase to avoid higher property tax bills??? I have lived next door to several people with this mindset.
I should admit that I am sympathetic - I would not want to pay higher property taxes as the result of a home improvement either - why should a home owner be penalized by higher property taxes when improving their home???
And, how would my home improvement effect the impact my family has on the local infrastructure??? It wouldn't, yet I would now be expected to contribute a greater share.
Is that fair???
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 01:14 am |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
Ms. Reed,
If you recall your last comment in reference to this topic... I would prefer that any "toll" pass be issued to a user rather than a vehicle.
We used to live in a state where annual park passes were affixed to the vehicle which resulted in our having to purchase TWO passes - one for the family van when we were dragging the kids along and a second for the more fuel efficient car when we were without the children.
We were very happy when we purchased our state parks pass here and discovered it was transferable and could be used in which ever car we chose to drive that day.
Back to the issue of property taxes... what if we only taxed the assessed value of the land??? This would account for variation of the value in land based on any factor that would effect its value such as proximity to parks and/or landfills for example. Taxing just the value of the land and not improvements would also remove the disincentive for investment to improvements, because again, if the assessed value of our land is equal, our property taxes would be equal even if your home is 4,500 sq ft and gilded in gold while I'm still living in my 1,300 sq ft stuccoed house.
What do you think???
Dear AJ:
What would be the advantage to doing this? Is there a particular model that you are thinking of emulating? I don't see that any disincentive exists for developing land as it is usually more salable, or rentable, with improvements. There are only so many people who want to build a custom home, most prefer a turn-key, move the furniture in, type setup.
Should the tax on a modular home, a tract home and a custom home be equal? If you had an acre of land in a neighborhood full of modular homes and I had an acre of land where custom homes were built, and a speculator owned an acre zoned for commercial, wouldn't there be a pretty substantial difference in the values of our acreage? Shouldn't these differences be taken into account?
Regardless of the method of valuation, wouldn't the need for actual tax contributions remain the same? An improved lot, complete with commuters, school aged kids, etc., has a greater impact on the County's need for additional infrastructure. Changing the valuation method would only modify property owners proportionate share of tax and I can't see without further persuasion how this method would be more equitable for Pinal residents. It seems fair to me to assess taxes on valuation of land and improvements and charge the developers an impact fee based on their proposed usage.
Again, if you can refer me to a particular county or entity that taxes in this manner so I can research it's efficacy, I'd be happy to look it over and give you my comments.
Regards,
Anne
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12th, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
turtle scam in the middle of a discussion about property taxes. that was really random...LOL
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12th, 2008 04:24 am |
|
Ms. Reed,
If you recall your last comment in reference to this topic... I would prefer that any "toll" pass be issued to a user rather than a vehicle.
We used to live in a state where annual park passes were affixed to the vehicle which resulted in our having to purchase TWO passes - one for the family van when we were dragging the kids along and a second for the more fuel efficient car when we were without the children.
We were very happy when we purchased our state parks pass here and discovered it was transferable and could be used in which ever car we chose to drive that day.
Back to the issue of property taxes... what if we only taxed the assessed value of the land??? This would account for variation of the value in land based on any factor that would effect its value such as proximity to parks and/or landfills for example. Taxing just the value of the land and not improvements would also remove the disincentive for investment to improvements, because again, if the assessed value of our land is equal, our property taxes would be equal even if your home is 4,500 sq ft and gilded in gold while I'm still living in my 1,300 sq ft stuccoed house.
What do you think???
Last edited on Sat Apr 12th, 2008 04:25 am by ajBookchin
|
kmarsh
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | Macon, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 01:40 am |
|
Ms. Reed has informed me that she does not use the screen name of annreed07@yahoo.com Hopefully between her and I we can help the sheriffs department with something on this even if its eliminating which ann reed it wasnt We have found that the person using the above screen name is a Ann Lawrence from Queen Creek, AZ. My apologies to Ms. Reed, it is a shame when someone chooses to use anothers name to preform such scams.
Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 12:32 pm by kmarsh
|
kmarsh
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | Macon, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
| Well if you didnt go by the screen name of annreed07@yahoo.com then you arent the one. Ms. Reed has informed me that this is not the screen name she uses. Hopefully between her and I we will be able to give the sheriffs something to help them with on this case, even if it is elimanating who the ann reed isnt Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 01:37 am by kmarsh
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
Dear K:
I'm not your turtle bandit, but, I sympathize with your misfortune.
Regards,
Anne
|
kmarsh
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | Macon, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
| No, not a stalker. I am a victim of internet scam involving a person who i paid 300.00 for tortoises that never came. This person went by the screen name of annreed07@yahoo.com and is from Queencreek, AZ. I am trying to help my local sheriffs office find her. Any help would be greatly appreciated. You dont have to contact me call the Jones County Sheriffs office directly at 478-9863489 and ask for officer Greene with the internet scams division. THanks
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 380 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
Folks, this is why you don't use your real name. LOL 
Joking aside, I have my own opinions,view points and ethics that counters Anne's on occasion but I in all sincerity hope that she doesn't have a stalker.
So what's up kmarsh?
|
kmarsh
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | Macon, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
| Curious if anyone here knows ann reed personally. If so please email me back. Thanks, Kathy Marsh
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 418 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
| Even factoring in a heafty profit the private sector is so much more efficient that in the end it costs the users less. Is oversight necessary? Maybe but too much oversight leads to more expenses. I advocate privitizing schools for the same reason.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 02:23 pm |
|
Dear AJ:
The below listed article provides some caveats regarding toll roads and does not reflect my personal position concerning same. I haven't studied the topic enough to form a solid opinion but don't automatically oppose a toll road.
If the infrastructure we are discussing is roads, a sales tax on fuel is an equitable measure of use. I'm not sure if there is any provision for taxing the "big rigs" (diesel vs. unleaded) proportionate to their depletion of our roadways. Maybe their should be. The downside of this action, since these carriers ultimately recapture their costs from the end user, would be an increase in the cost of consumer goods causing additional inflationary pressure.
Also, existing contributions are collected from builders in the form or impact fees or exactions. This method, while very effective in funding future roads and improvements, is a function of housing starts and is subject to market fluctuations.
I wonder if County or State toll roads have been tested? Privatization of highways and freeways would introduce the "profit motive" into the equation and I feel a little concerned at that prospect. However, what about a State or County toll road? Potentially, the government entity could establish a standard toll for non-residents or infrequent users and sell discounted annual passes in advance to commuters or others who have a predictable type of usage and predictable need for the subject road.
I don't imagine it's unforseeable that an encoded window sticker and a reader at toll entrance could automatically track use to insure that passes are not abused. For example, if someone knew that they would commute to Phoenix and travel that road twice a day 5 times a week during the upcoming year, they could buy a pass that includes 520 trips. The pass would need to issued to a vehicle, not to a family. Collecting the tolls in advance would provide the issuing entity immediate cash for maintenance and improvements as opposed to a future stream of income which would be subject to market conditions.
Just brainstorming here, I do not advocate this plan. What suggestions might you offer?
Regards,
Anne
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 6th, 2008 06:47 am |
|
Ms. Reed,
Ok, so you do not like toll roads, but can you then provide an example of...
anne.reed wrote:
... a provision for impact on county services and infrastructure should be a consideration for taxation...
I felt a toll road would be a good example of "provisioning for impact on county services and infrastructure.
Would you please provide an example how taxation might be provisioned for an individual's impact on services and infrastructure???
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=276
This article brings up some challenges to the concept of toll roads. My father in law anticipated a problem when cable TV became available in the late 70's(?), though it was really cheap at the time, $12.00 for all premium channels. He said "Once we start paying for TV we'll never be able to stop."
I wonder if this caveat applies to toll roads as well?
Toll Roads, Privatization, and Taxes – Connect the DOTs - Part II
Part I may be found here.
Part I looked at the push for privatization of roads and the problems encountered with privatized roadways. The pro-private roads lobby has said that they cannot make a profit on roads unless they are given noncompete agreements. This Part examines the use of noncompete agreements in both public and private toll roads.
The poster child for noncompete agreements is California SR 91. The private contractor and the state agreed that public highways near SR 91 would not be maintained or improved until the year 2030. In other words, the state was to allow the state highway to crumble for decades, forcing the public onto the private toll road. But California found it could not leave the roads to deteriorate and endanger drivers’ lives. When the state fixed the nearby roads, the private owner sued for breach of contract, and the public learned the true cost of the private road. The public was furious and turned against the project and the government that had agreed to it.
It is worth noting that SR 91 was never exposed to the rigors of the market. It was built within the median of an eight-lane freeway. This allowed the private company to avoid the problems of building a new road - condemning property, grading it, creating access roads, and the like. This was a tremendous subsidy to the private contractor. But the state dissembled, and touted this as “innovative financing.”
SR 91 made noncompete agreements anathema. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer described the Hwy. 91 as a “polite form of highway robbery.”
The problem is that when there is no “noncompete” provision, the private sector is not interested in funding toll roads.
The GAO found that 4 of the 5 tollways examined included noncompete clauses in their contracts “under which the public sector agrees to varying degrees not to build any new roads or improve any of the existing roads that may result in additional capacity within a predetermined distance of the newly constructed road for a certain period of time.” Where these did not exist, there were “understandings” the state would not build a competing road.
The SR 91 experience has forced privatization proponents to find creative ways to achieve the same end. One is to require the state to compensate the private owner for any revenues lost when improvements are made to nearby roads. California’s State Route 125 includes a provision that allows the state to build a competing road but only if the state reimburses the private company for revenues lost to the new road. Calculating those lost revenues is, again, an enterprise filled with uncertainty and opportunities for overreaching.
The private sector takes the position that “eliminating or limiting noncompete provisions is not a solution, because the private sector would be unwilling to invest in highway projects without adequate protection against future competition.” Robert Poole said, in January 2005, “Nearly all new toll road projects, in order to sell bonds to investors, must offer some degree of protection from unlimited taxfunded competition from competing free highways.”
The testing ground for the success of private roadways is now pitting state highways against state toll roads. If the state toll roads can find ways to generate enough income this will prove that private roads can make profits.
The states are interested in being guinea pigs because many are now facing revenue shortfalls as a result of laws that limit their ability to raise enough taxes to fund necessary state functions. Among these functions is road building. As a result, they are eager to use toll roads as a funding mechanism. Tolls are, of course, just taxes in disguise, but a form of taxation that the public has so far not forcefully resisted. This may be, in part, because many do not pay their own tolls. A study found that 18% did not pay their own tolls. These business expenses are deductible on federal and state tax returns, so they are subsidized by the public. The same study found that poorer people tend to use toll roads more than do wealth people. This makes tolls a highly regressive tax, falling most heavily on the poor.
States that use toll roads as disguised taxation face the same problem as do private contractors: persuading drivers to use the toll roads when there are often alternate free routes. Just as http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm">noncompete agreements are necessary for private toll-road operators to invest in projects, states striving to survive economically need ways to ensure sufficient tolls are being paid. Experience has shown that cutting tolls is not enough to prevent “traffic diversion” from toll roads.
The key to success is ensuring that free roads are so congested that drivers are forced to use toll roads. States recognize this and are quite candid about the desirability of congested roads. The Colorado Tolling Enterprise, a part of the Colorado Department of Transportation, refers to the importance of noncompete covenants, significant congestion on free roads, and lack of availability of competing free roads as ways to enhance “the credit profile” and gain private financing. cite:
Unlike private toll road owners, states have the power to make alternate routes congested and unpleasant. “[T]raffic-control measures can be taken to discourage diversion - e.g., additional traffic signals, speed bumps, through-traffic barriers, and other "traffic-calming" methods.
Congestion translates into delay, so anything that can create a speed advantage for tollways is crucial.
Toll road owners can capitalize on this by marketing speed. Colorado’s Denver area toll road E470 uses slogans such as "70 mph optimism," "Road Nirvana," "Home Swift Home," and “Arrive Fashionably Early.”
Even a private Denver airport parking website touts the advantages of using E470 and urges customers to buy an express toll pass to avoid stopping at toll plazas. Once a driver has pre-paid tolls, those toll roads will be used to recoup the sunk costs, and psychology will take over to persuade the driver that it was worth it. Commuters typically overestimate time saved using a toll road by 5-30 minutes.
In addition to advertising speed as an advantage, it appears that the state or county has decided to ensure that the alternate route to E470 is decidedly slower and less pleasant to drive. Slow roads are unpleasant in themselves and may also lead to desirable congestion. Before E470 opened, Tower Road had a speed limit of 55 mph. The speed limit became 40 mph, when E470 opened, and several unnecessary stop lights have been added.
While these changes may not mean there is a written covenant not to compete between the Toll Road Authority and the communities that maintain Tower Road, they have the same effect as other covenants not to compete have. It will, of course, take time to see if there is a failure to maintain the road. Failing to maintain a road for any length of time means destroying an important asset. For example, water that seeps into cracks that are not filled slowly erodes the surface and then causes deeper damage. Even worse, the failure to maintain roads causes expensive damage to vehicles which shifts the costs of maintaining the road to car – and sometimes even bicycle owners – and insurance companies.
By not raising enough taxes to fund road building and maintenance, as well as other public infrastructure, state governments are being pushed into game playing that does not serve the public interest. Instead, cash-strapped governments are focusing their efforts on developing complex strategies to raise disguised revenues.
Cheering them on are privatization zealots - who are also the folks who promote cutting taxes in order to make government smaller and markets larger. In the case of roads, they have made governments both leaner and meaner.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 06:39 am |
|
anne.reed wrote: I'd be willing to consider a toll road, but, I would also exclude the possibility of foreign nations profiting from such an investment. I've heard that some of the toll roads in the Los Angeles area were built by other sovereign nations and it is they who collect the tolls.
It would "chap my hide" to pay road tolls under those circumstances!
I agree.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 05:35 pm |
|
Dear AJ:
Please don't misunderstand, I am just running some ideas past you, I neither support or oppose any of these ideas until they've been fully researched.
I'd be willing to consider a toll road, but, I would also exclude the possibility of foreign nations profiting from such an investment. I've heard that some of the toll roads in the Los Angeles area were built by other sovereign nations and it is they who collect the tolls.
It would "chap my hide" to pay road tolls under those circumstances!
Regards,
Anne
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 08:19 pm |
|
anne.reed wrote"Dear AJ:
Perhaps I am not understanding what you propose, but, my first impression is that this would be a less than equitable solution to the dilemma. Why should a 3.3 acre parcel with a modest 900 sq. foot home built in 1980 be taxed at the same rate as a 4,400 sq. foot custom home (with all the bells and whistles) built in 2007, located on equal acreage that are otherwise similar? What if one property is located adjacent to a dump and the other adjacent to the Regional Park? In my thinking, valuations should be proportionate, reasonable, grow over time, and reflect the myriad of influences in the vacinity of each specific property. Excluding any of these factors would create injustice and would create a nightmare in the assessors office as protests to assessed valuation pored into their office.
I don't propose a change in the system, but, consider a family of 8 with 4 cars on the roads and 4 children in Pinal schools now pays the same tax as a single person who rides a bike and has no children. Maybe a provision for impact on county services and infrastructure should be a consideration for taxation. Though it would have nothing to do with valuation.
I think a more equitable means of valuation would be superior to a flat rate based on acres and zoning. Maybe a new formula for fairly assessing valuation is required?
Regards,
Anne
You bring up some good points!!!
I liked the idea of using a fixed value (such as acreage) to determine property taxes because large assessments always allow government to increase spending while arguing that they have been good stewards because the tax rate was reduced. If taxes were based on a fixed measure (such as acreage) the only thing that would increase your tax bill would be an increase in spending.
Ok, so my idea has some flaws, but…
You also make a great point with regard to the flaw in taxing of valuation. If my family of five lives in a 1,300 sq ft home on a 0.10 acre of land and a retired couple lives by themselves in 4,400 sq ft house on 3.3 acres of land – the retired couple will be a assessed a larger tax bill than myself although my family creates a much larger impact on county services (well, not county services – not my family) and infrastructure. Does that represent a “fair” method of taxation???
Is it also “fair” that you should pay more taxes because your home is simply “nicer” than mine??? If my neighbor up the street decides to gild his 1,300 sq ft home in gold, should he really be more financially responsible for county services and infrastructure than I am because my house is just stuccoed??? We shouldn’t punish property owners for investing in their homes/businesses.
With regard to property taxes, I do have another idea which continues the practice of assessments, but computes tax based on a fractional value of the county’s total value of assessments – if everyone’s assessment increases by approximately the same rate, your fraction of the overall value should remain relatively unchanged. I’m not sure I can communicate the concept well enough at this time – I will work on that and post back later.
You suggest a provision for impact on services and infrastructure; does this mean that you would support a toll road if one were proposed??? A toll road would be a clear example of taxing the users who use specific infrastructure. I might support that idea – as long as a private company is not allowed to profit from a publicly financed road.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 05:02 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote:
Property taxes are presently based on assessed value – a relatively fictional measure open to individual perception and constant change.
What if we based the distribution of property taxes on a concrete value not subject to interpretation such as acreage (square footage of land) and the zoning imposed on the land???
Under this method of measure, the only two factors altering property taxes would be a change in zoning or government spending. This method would eliminate camouflaged spending increases by which government dramatically increases revenue and spending while “lowering” the tax rate under the cover of higher assessments.
This method also eliminates the penalty property owners’ face when investing in their property – an owner would pay the same property taxes on an acre of land whether they resided in a 900 square foot home or a 3,600 square foot home – an owner would pay the same property taxes on an acre of land whether their home’s exterior was covered in stucco or plated in gold.
What do you think???
Dear AJ:
Perhaps I am not understanding what you propose, but, my first impression is that this would be a less than equitable solution to the dilemma. Why should a 3.3 acre parcel with a modest 900 sq. foot home built in 1980 be taxed at the same rate as a 4,400 sq. foot custom home (with all the bells and whistles) built in 2007, located on equal acreage that are otherwise similar? What if one property is located adjacent to a dump and the other adjacent to the Regional Park? In my thinking, valuations should be proportionate, reasonable, grow over time, and reflect the myriad of influences in the vacinity of each specific property. Excluding any of these factors would create injustice and would create a nightmare in the assessors office as protests to assessed valuation pored into their office.
I don't propose a change in the system, but, consider a family of 8 with 4 cars on the roads and 4 children in Pinal schools now pays the same tax as a single person who rides a bike and has no children. Maybe a provision for impact on county services and infrastructure should be a consideration for taxation. Though it would have nothing to do with valuation.
I think a more equitable means of valuation would be superior to a flat rate based on acres and zoning. Maybe a new formula for fairly assessing valuation is required?
Regards,
Anne
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
Property taxes are presently based on assessed value – a relatively fictional measure open to individual perception and constant change.
What if we based the distribution of property taxes on a concrete value not subject to interpretation such as acreage (square footage of land) and the zoning imposed on the land???
Under this method of measure, the only two factors altering property taxes would be a change in zoning or government spending. This method would eliminate camouflaged spending increases by which government dramatically increases revenue and spending while “lowering” the tax rate under the cover of higher assessments.
This method also eliminates the penalty property owners’ face when investing in their property – an owner would pay the same property taxes on an acre of land whether they resided in a 900 square foot home or a 3,600 square foot home – an owner would pay the same property taxes on an acre of land whether their home’s exterior was covered in stucco or plated in gold.
What do you think???
|
Current time is 07:29 pm | |
|
|
|