Posted on 09/06/2006 7:05:08 PM PDT by Vob
I really think property value and tax should be locked in at time of purchase and only change when property ownership changes. This just isn't right.
Mexico is going to hell.
Jeb needs to step into this now.
What am I missing? Jeb ?
Mexico Beach in Florida.
The tax structure in this country is set up so that taxes always go up no matter what you do. Property values have become the new cash cow for local govts.
We've annexed Mexico and Jeb is over Florida and Mexico? How cool is that? And the MSM hasn't said a word.
/sarc but the good kind
Don't they have a saying in FL, If you don't like the valuations, wait 5 minutes and they'll change?
So these people own property that has gone up in value.
They like the fact that they own expensive property but don't like higher taxes.
They want to keep the expensive property and pay much lower taxes.
Solution: Vote conservative candidates into office.
"I really think property value and tax should be locked in at time of purchase and only change when property ownership changes"
I know several people who bought their homes 20 and 30+ years ago. They'd love your idea.
Many people will have to sell before that happens.
If this isn't the oldest trick in the book, it's close.
You might be right but is sad to watch.
This may be a new twist on eminent domain. Keep raising taxes until they can't be paid, foreclose and sell at auction to a developer at a lower price. It wouldn't help the county budget but it would line some pocketbooks.
There should be some security. If they bought ..say for 25000 , 30 years ago, why couldn't the tax be locked in? When they sell for a million they can pay the sells tax on the sell price. The new owner would be locked into the current appraisal. Newer homes would have a higher rate but people would know what they were getting into when they bought.
No, that method places a disproportionate burden on the newcomers. It ends up as whacked as rent control. The operative theory is that property values rise across the board in a taxing district, not as point-specific increases. If that district has a $1B budget for example, then the sum of the increased values means a greater divisor, hence a LOWER tax rate. As long as the gubermint doesn't freeze the tax rate in order to reap a windfall, the net effect is minimal. That is the real problem, politicians want to hang onto the new money. Voters need to wise up and stop playing valuation freeze versus rate freeze and demand the BUDGET FREEZE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.