Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ChildOfThe60s
All of that is well and good and not being argued. But you do not explain a solution to your comment, that being:

it is a crime for two identical homes, side by side, to have one paying $800 and the other $2800 in yearly property taxes

You have two alternatives:

1) base taxes on purchase price, with reasonable COL increases over time.
or
2) base taxes on purchase price (which virtually always increase beyond COL).

In case one, you risk displacing long time owners who are now on fixed incomes. In case two, you anger those who have perhaps overstepped their affordability.

Which do you choose, or feel free to propose an alternative third method.

25 posted on 05/14/2007 7:03:07 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ("The military Mission has long since been accomplished" -- Harry Reid, April 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Michael.SF.; ChildOfThe60s
Which do you choose, or feel free to propose an alternative third method.

I propose the third method should be the elimination of the "government rent".

33 posted on 05/14/2007 7:25:15 PM PDT by kddid (Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Michael.SF.

Let me back track on one comment. I don’t really think property taxes are the best way to get the revenue the government “needs”. But, there they are.

The real problem with the “fixed income” people is that taxes are simply too high period. It would be better if the taxes were on assessed value, or on a percentage of assessed value. That wouldn’t be a burden if, big if, the government’s need for revenue was based on what it should be. Fantasy, I know.

One thing that should be done, is not just limiting the increases in assessed value, but limiting the *tax rate* increases. In other words, limit the actual dollar amount increases collected to a maximum fixed rate. There is no good reason, with this type of tax, that the government’s take (in raw dollars) should not be limited every year. IOW, if the county collected $800 from me last year, it can only collect up to 3% more from me this year. If my value goes up to a point which works out to a greater amount, then the rates have to be adjusted downward to balance it.

As it is now, the city says hmm, Child’s house value can only be raised 3%, so we’ll just raise the millage rate 10% to make up for that.

Consumption taxes are probably a more rational way to raise the funds. IF they result in the elimination of property taxes. A person on a fixed income is naturally going to spend less, having less disposable income to work with. Thus that person pays lower taxes. It also means that if I want to be frugal and save my money, the government can’t penalize me for doing that.

Again, all of our “solutions” only address how to rein in a particular tax. Which is like a water filled balloon. Squeeze it on one end and the other end expands. They will simply just get the same amount of money somewhere else. None of this goes to the root of the real problem. Restricting the government’s appetite for power over us and access to our money.


42 posted on 05/14/2007 7:48:41 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson