Venue conditions
Ed
>From Page Six in today's New York Post:
"August 15, 2006 -- THERE were bruised egos among wealthy Hamptonites
who attended a fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton in East Hampton
last weekend when they were treated to cattle-car conditions at the
acoustic Jon Bon Jovi concert that topped the evening. The 500 guests
who paid $300 and up found no seats in either of two tents set up for
the show on the estate of Bill Nuti, the CEO of NCR Corp. - and the VIP
tent was farther from the stage than the regular tent. "It wasn't done
Hamptons-style," one frazzled guest told us. "There was no seating and
I even saw a couple of pregnant women standing around. And people who
were looking for something to nibble on only got cookies and brownies."
Adding insult to injury was the fact that Bon Jovi went on 75 minutes
late. Donors were also bent out of shape because they had to park their
cars by the beach and walk five to 10 minutes to the tents in the
chilly evening air and then enter single-file through security, our
source said. Clinton's flack had no immediate comment."
Brownies! And these people are complaining?
Ed
Ken Fortenberry
> http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/tent_trauma_at_hillary_bash_pagesix_.htm
>
> From Page Six in today's New York Post:
>
This is the woman who married an Arkansas hillbilly, fer cryin'
out loud, what the hell does she know about "Hamptons-style" ?
Those Hamptonites should consider themselves lucky Uncle Billy
Bob didn't dribbled snuff all over their Manolo Blahniks.
--
Ken Fortenberry
volkfolk
"Ed" <write...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155676807.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Boo fucking who. These people have ruined what was an awesome place. When I
used to go out to visit my Grandparent in Ammagansett when I was a kid, the
Hamptons had some wealthy people, but also had tons of cornfields, Potato
farms, Duck farms and fishing villages. The farmers and the fisherman have
been forced to leave because property taxes have become unaffordable for the
average person. Basicly driven off of their land by what amounts to rural
gentrification. It borders on criminal IMO, that people who have lived there
for generations have been forced out by people with no respect for history,
culture and community. (And the solution is simple, base property taxes on
what the owner of a peice of property paid for it, instead of what it is
"worth". When property is sold, then the community can base the taxes on
what the new owner paid. Real Estate is the only piece of property which
taxes go up based on a value which is not based on what you paid for it but
an arbitrary value established by the government)
Now the Hamptons are nothing but "McMansions" occupied by vapid people who
have a need to be seen by other vapid people.
As far as I am concerned they can all go fuck themselves. Imagine, having to
WALK!!!! Along the Beach!!!!! What bunch of losers.
<Colonel Kurtz>
"The Horror, The horror"
</Colonel Kurtz>
Scot
Steve Terry
"volkfolk" <volk...@comcast.net> wrote in message:
> Imagine, having to WALK!!!! Along the Beach!!!!! What bunch of losers.
>
> <Colonel Kurtz>
>
> "The Horror, The horror"
>
> </Colonel Kurtz>
All for a friggin' Bon Jovi concert too! Oh the humanity!!!
JimK
wrote:
It's also a pretty dangerous place whenever Billy Joel climbs behind
the wheel.
JimK
bradish
"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:7g25e29d628ab0vr1...@4ax.com...
In the late 60s and 70s, my folks had a place out in S. Hampton. It was a
lot of cornfields and generally pretty "country". We spent the summer days
wandering up and down the beaches with not a care in the world, except that
new girl from Roslyn.... Sigh.....
>>The farmers and the fisherman have
>>been forced to leave because property taxes have become unaffordable for
>>the
>>average person. Basicly driven off of their land by what amounts to rural
>>gentrification. It borders on criminal IMO, that people who have lived
>>there
>>for generations have been forced out by people with no respect for
>>history,
>>culture and community.
A lot of those folks were "forced" to leave by insane piles of cash offered
to them by developers. I would say more of them left because the place they
loved was changing into something that wasn't gonna work for them and the
money would allow for a nice relocation and then some.
> (And the solution is simple, base property taxes on
>>what the owner of a peice of property paid for it, instead of what it is
>>"worth". When property is sold, then the community can base the taxes on
>>what the new owner paid. Real Estate is the only piece of property which
>>taxes go up based on a value which is not based on what you paid for it
>>but
>>an arbitrary value established by the government)
Wishful thinking.
>>Now the Hamptons are nothing but "McMansions" occupied by vapid people who
>>have a need to be seen by other vapid people.
A little mini-LA. Haha.
Chosney
volkfolk
"bradish" <bradishn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C8ednVfGxtQ3l37Z...@comcast.com...
And a lot of them were forced out by property taxes that made land that they
had owned for generations unaffordable. Certainly some sold out for the
money, but just as many were forced to sell off their land because it had
become unaffordable
>> (And the solution is simple, base property taxes on
>>>what the owner of a peice of property paid for it, instead of what it is
>>>"worth". When property is sold, then the community can base the taxes on
>>>what the new owner paid. Real Estate is the only piece of property which
>>>taxes go up based on a value which is not based on what you paid for it
>>>but
>>>an arbitrary value established by the government)
>
> Wishful thinking.
I agree, but it still makes sense, doesn't it? I don't have a problem with
property taxes, but what I do have a problem with is someone placing a cost
on something above and beyond what I paid for my property taxes. Here in MA,
we actually have a candidate who proposes to change the tax laws so that
your property taxes remain the same for as long as you own your home or do a
major home improvement project. I think that it is a much fairer way to
determine how much you pay in property tax than the current system where the
town assessor determines your tax based on an arbitrary value determined by
the same people who are collecting the tax. How is that fair?
Scot
band beyond description
"Chosney" <bob_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155737742.1...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> In other news, there are people who will pay $300 to see Jon Bon Jovi
>
who was featured on Larry King Live just now. meh.
JimK
wrote:
<snip>
>
>I agree, but it still makes sense, doesn't it? I don't have a problem with
>property taxes, but what I do have a problem with is someone placing a cost
>on something above and beyond what I paid for my property taxes. Here in MA,
>we actually have a candidate who proposes to change the tax laws so that
>your property taxes remain the same for as long as you own your home or do a
>major home improvement project. I think that it is a much fairer way to
>determine how much you pay in property tax than the current system where the
>town assessor determines your tax based on an arbitrary value determined by
>the same people who are collecting the tax. How is that fair?
>
>Scot
>
While I agree that the property tax burden in many places has gotten
out of control, I can't see how freezing someone's taxes for as long
as they own their property would be fair. Presumably, taxes go up
because the cost of the services they pay for go up, or because
additional services are provided (whether we need all those services
and whether they should cost as much as they do is another argument).
So why should a property owner be exempt from paying for those
increased costs, which would then have to be disproportionately borne
by more recent property owners? If both owners own homes worth the
same amount, they should pay the same taxes, shouldn't they? You can't
just ignore the fact that property values do increase.
JimK
DGDevin
>>
> While I agree that the property tax burden in many places has gotten
> out of control, I can't see how freezing someone's taxes for as long
> as they own their property would be fair. Presumably, taxes go up
> because the cost of the services they pay for go up,
> You can't
> just ignore the fact that property values do increase.
>
> JimK
Whoa, are you saying if you own a piece of land in the middle of nowhere
with no services of any kind from any level of govt. that the taxes should
go up because Bill Gates built a summer retreat twenty miles down the road
and elevated the value of land in the county? People who've lived in the
area for decades should suddenly see their taxes skyrocket because a rich
guy moved into the area and an assessor makes an arbitrary ruling that their
unchanged property is worth more on paper?
Why should you be taxed on the *potential* value of your property? After
all, you don't get a dime from that property unless you sell it, being taxed
on what it might be worth *if* you sell it is like being taxed on the raise
in salary you *might* get next year.
The cost of services is an invalid argument, that can easily be dealt with
by the city or county charging a fee for service use, if you want water from
city pipes you pay for it, that way as the costs go up the fee goes up too,
there is no need to tie services to property taxes.
Steve Terry
"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
Let's get rid of property taxes altogether, and just add another tax based
on income. Property taxes at times seem arbitrary and whimsical.
Ray
Ed wrote:
> Brownies! And these people are complaining?
Maybe it's more "Hamptons-style" to be offered lines instead.
JimK
wrote:
>"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
>news:rsp7e21254ilhdfkj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>> While I agree that the property tax burden in many places has gotten
>> out of control, I can't see how freezing someone's taxes for as long
>> as they own their property would be fair. Presumably, taxes go up
>> because the cost of the services they pay for go up,
>[snip]
>> You can't
>> just ignore the fact that property values do increase.
>>
>> JimK
>
>Whoa, are you saying if you own a piece of land in the middle of nowhere
>with no services of any kind from any level of govt. that the taxes should
>go up because Bill Gates built a summer retreat twenty miles down the road
>and elevated the value of land in the county? People who've lived in the
>area for decades should suddenly see their taxes skyrocket because a rich
>guy moved into the area and an assessor makes an arbitrary ruling that their
>unchanged property is worth more on paper?
Gee, did I say that?? Huh!
>
>Why should you be taxed on the *potential* value of your property? After
>all, you don't get a dime from that property unless you sell it, being taxed
>on what it might be worth *if* you sell it is like being taxed on the raise
>in salary you *might* get next year.
That argument would be fine if we were talking about a capital gains
tax, but we're not. If you're going to have property taxes, the only
fair way to assess them is on the basis of the assessed value of the
property at the time the tax is imposed, which has nothing to do with
when it was purchased.
>
>The cost of services is an invalid argument, that can easily be dealt with
>by the city or county charging a fee for service use, if you want water from
>city pipes you pay for it, that way as the costs go up the fee goes up too,
>there is no need to tie services to property taxes.
>
Really? So how do you pay for the services of a teacher? Are you going
to charge the parents of every student a user fee? Do you have to pay
more for better grades? And if you're arguing user fees as a
supplement to property taxes, and not a replacement, that wouldn't
change the inequity of having new property owners paying more than old
property owners for property that has the same value regardless of
when it was purchased.
JimK
Andy Gefen
wrote:
>Why should you be taxed on the *potential* value of your property? After
>all, you don't get a dime from that property unless you sell it, being taxed
>on what it might be worth *if* you sell it is like being taxed on the raise
>in salary you *might* get next year.
Can you define what the "potential" value of a piece of property is?
Either the property has that particular value, or it doesn't. A
proper appraisal reflects the value of the property and should reflect
the price at which it would change hands in an arm's-length
transaction. I don't know of a single jurisdiction that taxes the
"potential" value.
-- Andy (remove z's to respond)
Steve Terry
"Andy Gefen" <zage...@zcomcastz.znetz> wrote in message
news:87s9e258bobitdsnu...@4ax.com...
I think by using the word potential he means just what you are saying: the
current appraised value of a property. The point is that just because
someone's property goes up in value doesn't necessarily mean that their
wherewithal to pay more in property taxes goes up too.
DGDevin
> Gee, did I say that?? Huh!
What other practical application of your apparent views is there?
"If both owners own homes worth the same amount, they should pay the same
taxes, shouldn't they? You can't just ignore the fact that property values
do increase."
You're prepared to see someone's taxes jump purely on the theoretical value
of their property, someone proves George Washington once slept in your house
and now your property taxes quadruple despite the land, the buildings,
everything being exactly the same, all based on an assessor who decides *if*
you sold your house you'd get more money than last year? You haven't seen a
dime extra in your bank account, your standard of living is unchanged, but
you pay more in taxes because *in theory* your property is worth more?
> That argument would be fine if we were talking about a capital gains
> tax, but we're not. If you're going to have property taxes, the only
> fair way to assess them is on the basis of the assessed value of the
> property at the time the tax is imposed, which has nothing to do with
> when it was purchased.
Who says it's the only fair way? Businesses pay taxes per square foot, is
there some reason that isn't applied to residential properties? What about
insurance value, if the replacement value of your house is $200,000 why
should you pay taxes on a assessed value of $300,000--the land can't burn
down, can it? What's wrong with a flat-tax on a residential property
modified by building replacement cost? Why isn't household income part of
the equation, why should a widow trying to raise her kids in the family home
pay the same property taxes as when the family income was much higher? Why
should a retired person on a fixed income have to choose between medical
care and ever-increasing property taxes? "Fair" is in the eye of the
beholder.
>>The cost of services is an invalid argument, that can easily be dealt with
>>by the city or county charging a fee for service use, if you want water
>>from
>>city pipes you pay for it, that way as the costs go up the fee goes up
>>too,
>>there is no need to tie services to property taxes.
>>
> Really? So how do you pay for the services of a teacher?
Is a teacher a city utility? What part of "city pipes" was too oblique?
> Are you going
> to charge the parents of every student a user fee?
Sure, why not? You have to pay registration on every car you drive, you
have to pay for every electrical or gas meter, for every sewer hookup, why
shouldn't people who use public schools have to pay more than the people who
have no need of them? Obviously education is supported by general tax
revenues because education benefits all of society, but if automobile owners
have to pay fees in addition to their taxes then why shouldn't parents?
Drivers pay more in license and registration fees to use public roads, so
why not people who send their kids to public schools?
> Do you have to pay
> more for better grades?
Gonna need a translator on this one. And if you mean higher fees for a
better school, why would that bother you, you want to tax people more for
living in a better house don't you?
> And if you're arguing user fees as a
> supplement to property taxes, and not a replacement, that wouldn't
> change the inequity of having new property owners paying more than old
> property owners for property that has the same value regardless of
> when it was purchased.
What exactly is keeping your mind from stretching around the concept that
the supposed value of the property doesn't need to be part of the equation?
Why should someone who puts in a wheelchair ramp out of necessity pay more
in taxes because of that improvement? Why should someone with no plans to
sell their home pay more in taxes because *if* they sold it it would be
worth more than when they bought it? I paid taxes when I bought my wife's
wedding ring, should I have to pay more now because the price of gold has
gone up since then? Do you pay taxes on the interest from your savings
account, or on the amount you actually have saved? How would you feel if
they told you from now on you're going to pay taxes on your savings instead
of just the interest? Yet it's okay to tax a homeowner on the *theoretical*
value of the home they scrimped to own half their life just because there's
a new mall just the other side of the freeway and the assessor says that
means their property is now worth more?
One might almost guess that you're a renter.
Steve Terry
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message:
> Businesses pay taxes per square foot
Here in my my neck of the woods some companies have been given property tax
abatements as part of an inducement package to bring jobs to the community.
However, on more than one occasion when the abatements expired, poof!, the
company closed its doors and moved elsewhere$
DGDevin
news:87s9e258bobitdsnu...@4ax.com...
> Can you define what the "potential" value of a piece of property is?
> Either the property has that particular value, or it doesn't. A
> proper appraisal reflects the value of the property and should reflect
> the price at which it would change hands in an arm's-length
> transaction. I don't know of a single jurisdiction that taxes the
> "potential" value.
Until there is a sale it's nothing but potential value. If a city tax
assessor and an insurance company and a real estate agent all come up with
different numbers, which one is right? And why should a business get to
write off the cost of its building and inventory as an expense but a
homeowner has to pay taxes on his primary possession?
DGDevin
news:ec2tr2$1kca$1...@news.iquest.net...
>
> I think by using the word potential he means just what you are saying: the
> current appraised value of a property. The point is that just because
> someone's property goes up in value doesn't necessarily mean that their
> wherewithal to pay more in property taxes goes up too.
Exactly, some pensioner on a fixed income can't pay the taxes on the home
she's lived in for fifty years because a commercial development nearby has
in theory raised the value of the property, real nice.
JimK
wrote:
>"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
>news:ler9e2hkafk3uqfca...@4ax.com...
>
>> Gee, did I say that?? Huh!
>
>What other practical application of your apparent views is there?
First of all, let's correct the problem of your creative snipping and
keep the discussion in context.
I wrote:
While I agree that the property tax burden in many places has gotten
out of control, I can't see how freezing someone's taxes for as long
as they own their property would be fair. Presumably, taxes go up
because the cost of the services they pay for go up, or because
additional services are provided (whether we need all those services
and whether they should cost as much as they do is another argument).
So why should a property owner be exempt from paying for those
increased costs, which would then have to be disproportionately borne
by more recent property owners? If both owners own homes worth the
same amount, they should pay the same taxes, shouldn't they? You can't
just ignore the fact that property values do increase.
Then you wrote:
>
Whoa, are you saying if you own a piece of land in the middle of
nowhere with no services of any kind from any level of govt. that the
taxes should go up because Bill Gates built a summer retreat twenty
miles down the road and elevated the value of land in the county?
People who've lived in the area for decades should suddenly see their
taxes skyrocket because a rich guy moved into the area and an assessor
makes an arbitrary ruling that their unchanged property is worth more
on paper?
Then I wrote:
Gee, did I say that?? Huh!
Then you wrote:
What other practical application of your apparent views is there?
------------------------------
I don't see how what I said initially can in any way be interpreted as
an endorsement of skyrocketing property taxes or outrageous property
appraisals like the one you cite. You seem to be under the impression
that the value of property is static and never changes until you sell
it (although you also seem to acknowledge otherwise when you say that
your fictitious property owner's land increased in value because Bill
Gates moved in down the road). Sorry, but that's not how it works in
the real world. If I own a painting that I bought for $100 ten years
ago from a struggling artist and the artist subsequently becomes a
world reknowned master, the value of my painting will go up even if I
don't sell it. There are countless other examples that would
illustrate this point, and you're too bright to need me to bring them
up.
Actually, I will bring up one more that's even more to the point.
Let's say I buy a house for $100,000. Ten years later, I add a garage,
a deck, and a basement apartment. Should I continue to pay taxes for
all eternity based on the price I bought the house for despite these
improvements? No, of course not, you say? Then how do the town
determine how much additional tax I should pay? Well, they do an
appraisal of the improvements and assess how much value they added to
the house. According to your argument, such assessments are
"arbitrary" and therefore unfair. Yes, they are arbitrary, but that
doesn't make them unfair as long as reasonable standards are used in
making the assessment and those standards are applied uniformly to all
property in the town.
>
>"If both owners own homes worth the same amount, they should pay the same
>taxes, shouldn't they? You can't just ignore the fact that property values
>do increase."
>
>You're prepared to see someone's taxes jump purely on the theoretical value
>of their property, someone proves George Washington once slept in your house
>and now your property taxes quadruple despite the land, the buildings,
>everything being exactly the same, all based on an assessor who decides *if*
>you sold your house you'd get more money than last year? You haven't seen a
>dime extra in your bank account, your standard of living is unchanged, but
>you pay more in taxes because *in theory* your property is worth more?
Ah, yet another instance of putting false words into someone's mouth.
Nowhere in my original post did I endorse the reliance on property
taxes to fund town governments. My argument was addressing the
contention by you or someone else that property taxes aren't fair
because they shouldn't go up just because the value of the property
goes up. I pointed out that it would be unfair to tax recent
purchasers of property based on current value while taxing long-term
property owners based on the much lower value of thier property at the
time they purchased it. That being the case, I'd prefer if some other
form of taxation was used instead of property taxes, which are too
regressive for my tastes; perhaps some combination of a minimal
property tax, user's fees, and an income based tax.
Another factor you're overlooking is that a huge increase in the value
of one's property doesn't necessarily mean a huge increase in taxes.
Again, nearly all property will appreciate in value over time.
Property taxes are generally based on a grand list consisting of the
values of all property in a town. Once the town has a budget, it
determines how much it needs to raise in taxes to fund the budget, and
that determines the tax rate that is applied to all property in the
town. Assuming for the sake of argument that the value of all or most
of those properties goes up each time an assessment is done by the
town, and that the budget goes up at the same rate as the resulting
grand list, then taxes will go up at that same rate.
Now let's say there's a huge increase in property values since the
last assessment because of a general boom in real estate prices, such
as the one we just saw during the past few years. But let's say that
there is no corresponding increase in the town budget. What happens
then? Nothing, really. Since the town only needs the same amount of
money as it did the year before, it's going to collect the same amount
of taxes as the year before. Because property values have increased,
this is accomplished by lowering the tax rate, but the net effect is
the same.
So increases in property values aren't usually the cause of drastic
rises in property taxes. Those increases generally occur for one of
two reasons: either the tax base has decreased (e.g., when the town's
largest taxpaying business moves out of town and no other businesses
move in to replace it), shifting more of the burden to the remaining
taxpayers; or the town has drastically increased spending.
>
>> That argument would be fine if we were talking about a capital gains
>> tax, but we're not. If you're going to have property taxes, the only
>> fair way to assess them is on the basis of the assessed value of the
>> property at the time the tax is imposed, which has nothing to do with
>> when it was purchased.
>
>Who says it's the only fair way? Businesses pay taxes per square foot, is
>there some reason that isn't applied to residential properties?
You surprise me. You can't be so naive as to think square footage is
the sole determinant of business property taxes, can you? Do you
really think that the owner of a 20,000 square foot office in the
heart of Wall Street will pay the same taxes as the owner of the same
size office in a less desirable section of Manhattan? Square footage
is always a factor in property assessments, but it's far from the only
one.
What about
>insurance value, if the replacement value of your house is $200,000 why
>should you pay taxes on a assessed value of $300,000--the land can't burn
>down, can it? What's wrong with a flat-tax on a residential property
>modified by building replacement cost?
This statement makes no sense to me. The reason you only insure the
value (there's that word again) of the house and not the land is
because, as you say, the land can't burn down. But the land is
property and it does have value (again!) and, therefore, if you're
going to have a property tax, you have to tax land.
Why isn't household income part of
>the equation, why should a widow trying to raise her kids in the family home
>pay the same property taxes as when the family income was much higher? Why
>should a retired person on a fixed income have to choose between medical
>care and ever-increasing property taxes? "Fair" is in the eye of the
>beholder.
But again, you're bringing up a totally different fairness issue, that
of whether property taxes in general are inherently unfair. I've
already made it clear that I tend to agree, but that's not what the
initial argument was about. The question was, given the existence of a
property tax, is it fair to increase someone's property taxes based on
an increase in the value of their property. As I've pointed out, one
doesn't usually cause the other so it's a faulty premise to begin
with.
>
>>>The cost of services is an invalid argument, that can easily be dealt with
>>>by the city or county charging a fee for service use, if you want water
>>>from
>>>city pipes you pay for it, that way as the costs go up the fee goes up
>>>too,
>>>there is no need to tie services to property taxes.
>>>
>> Really? So how do you pay for the services of a teacher?
>
>Is a teacher a city utility? What part of "city pipes" was too oblique?
So when you said "the cost of services is an invalid argument" you
were referring only to water from city pipes? When you said "there is
no need to tie services to property taxes" you were only referring to
those pipes again? So is that the only service a town offers??
>
>> Are you going
>> to charge the parents of every student a user fee?
>
>Sure, why not? You have to pay registration on every car you drive, you
>have to pay for every electrical or gas meter, for every sewer hookup, why
>shouldn't people who use public schools have to pay more than the people who
>have no need of them? Obviously education is supported by general tax
>revenues because education benefits all of society, but if automobile owners
>have to pay fees in addition to their taxes then why shouldn't parents?
>Drivers pay more in license and registration fees to use public roads, so
>why not people who send their kids to public schools?
Look, I'm not totally opposed to user's fees on a limited basis. I
live in a town where at least 90% of the budget goes to operating the
school system, I never went to school hear and I don't have any kids.
I do get that societal benefit, but all in all, I'm getting screwed
pretty good. So use, I'd like to see parents of school children chip
in a bit more base on their ability to pay. I doubt I'll live to see
that happen, though. But once again, whether property taxes in general
are fair was not the original issue here.
>
>> Do you have to pay
>> more for better grades?
>
>Gonna need a translator on this one. And if you mean higher fees for a
>better school, why would that bother you, you want to tax people more for
>living in a better house don't you?
Just a joke, DG. I was humorously suggesting that if you wanted your
kids to get better grades, you might have to pay a higher user fee.
>
>> And if you're arguing user fees as a
>> supplement to property taxes, and not a replacement, that wouldn't
>> change the inequity of having new property owners paying more than old
>> property owners for property that has the same value regardless of
>> when it was purchased.
>
>What exactly is keeping your mind from stretching around the concept that
>the supposed value of the property doesn't need to be part of the equation?
I understand the concept completely; I just don't agree with it. And
again, that's not an endorsement of property taxes.
>
>Why should someone who puts in a wheelchair ramp out of necessity pay more
>in taxes because of that improvement? Why should someone with no plans to
>sell their home pay more in taxes because *if* they sold it it would be
>worth more than when they bought it? I paid taxes when I bought my wife's
>wedding ring, should I have to pay more now because the price of gold has
>gone up since then? Do you pay taxes on the interest from your savings
>account, or on the amount you actually have saved? How would you feel if
>they told you from now on you're going to pay taxes on your savings instead
>of just the interest? Yet it's okay to tax a homeowner on the *theoretical*
>value of the home they scrimped to own half their life just because there's
>a new mall just the other side of the freeway and the assessor says that
>means their property is now worth more?
These are all bogus arguments which I think I've pretty well addressed
elsewhere, so I'm not going to bother again.
>
>One might almost guess that you're a renter.
>
You'd guess wrong, just like you guessed wrong that I was somehow a
proponent of property taxes.
JimK (proud homeowner for over 30 years, including the current one on
which I pay outrageous property taxes)
JimK
wrote:
One last time.......you're confusing property taxes with capital gains
taxes. They're two different things. In the real world, what you call
"potential" value is used in all sorts of business matters. How do you
think you determine how much to insure your house for? If you built it
for $100,000 twenty years ago, is that what you're going to insure it
for today? After all, you haven't sold it, so any increase in value is
only "potential," not real, right? Let me know how that works out for
you when the house burns down.
JimK
volkfolk
"Andy Gefen" <zage...@zcomcastz.znetz> wrote in message
news:87s9e258bobitdsnu...@4ax.com...
If you don't sell it, it is only worth what you paid for it. It isn't a
liquid assett. I have some very nice family heirlooms such as an Oriental
Rug that was in my father's office (Appraised at an obscene amount of money
a couple of years ago-well into five figures), My Grandfatier's Lionel
Trains, and a feel other peices of furniture and Artwork The have a
potential value of close to $100,000-if I sell them. Should the government
be able to tax me on $100,000 in additional property? I have no intention of
selling any of it, Should the government be able to tax me on the value of
items that have always belonged to my family and I have no intention of
selling? Fair market value is how to determine what you could potentially
sell if for. But suppose the "value" of the property decreases. The value is
now "less". IMO these are artificial numbers, which are only relevant when
money and ownership change hands
It's pretty much the same thing. Property is worth what you paid for it when
you bought it, unless you improve it or sell it (IMO)
Scot
volkfolk
"Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155853255....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ed wrote:
>> Brownies! And these people are complaining?
>
> Maybe it's more "Hamptons-style" to be offered lines instead.
*heh*
Scot
Andy Gefen
wrote:
If that were the case, then values would never appreciate. I'd be
able to buy a nice house for $10k. Property is worth what the market
would pay for it. If you hire a real estate agent to sell your house,
they're not going to care what you paid for it 30 years ago. Yes, it
is a relatively illiquid asset, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
appreciate over time. And if the value (not the "potential" value)
goes down, you can appeal your property tax assessment and have it
reduced. If your jurisdiction taxed all personal property, then yes,
you'd have to pay taxes on $100,000 of your grandfather's trains, but
they don't do that (I believe they do have a wealth tax in France,
however). I believe your gripe is with people whose property taxes
have risen substantially because they live in gentrifying areas. First
of all, they're sitting on a gold mine. In some areas of DC people
bought their houses for something like $40k many years ago, and
they're worth closer to $700k nowadays. Secondly, a lot of
jurisdictions attempt to mitigate the impact of property tax increases
through several methods: elderly credits, homestead credits, or caps
in the assessment increases. There is nothing inherently unfair in
using current values, since that means that the community is
contributing to the government's needs according to how much they own
(house-wise).
JimK
These are all good points, but the main reason why property values
have to be based on current market value goes back to the original
poster who argued that property taxes should be based on the price
paid for the property regardless of any subsequent appreciation. As I
explained in another post, this would be totally inequitable. My
neighbor and I could own identical homes, mine purchased in 1990 for
$100k, his in 2005 for $200k. Since the homes are identical, they're
both worth whatever the current market value is, and we both receive
essentially the same services from the town. But if we were taxed
based on our purchase prices, my neighbore would be paying twice as
much in taxes. Please explain how that could possibly be fair?
Property is NOT worth what you paid for it when you bought it.
JimK
Rogues Island's finest
Isn't that how it works in CA? I seem to recall Richard talking about
his ridiculously low real estate taxes, and I think he said the
valuation was frozen if the owners have been in the house since a
certain date.
Mark
JimK
<mth...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>JimK wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> These are all good points, but the main reason why property values
>> have to be based on current market value goes back to the original
>> poster who argued that property taxes should be based on the price
>> paid for the property regardless of any subsequent appreciation. As I
>> explained in another post, this would be totally inequitable. My
>> neighbor and I could own identical homes, mine purchased in 1990 for
>> $100k, his in 2005 for $200k. Since the homes are identical, they're
>> both worth whatever the current market value is, and we both receive
>> essentially the same services from the town. But if we were taxed
>> based on our purchase prices, my neighbore would be paying twice as
>> much in taxes. Please explain how that could possibly be fair?
>> Property is NOT worth what you paid for it when you bought it.
>
>Isn't that how it works in CA? I seem to recall Richard talking about
>his ridiculously low real estate taxes, and I think he said the
>valuation was frozen if the owners have been in the house since a
>certain date.
>
>Mark
Nothing would surprise me about the way government works in CA.
JimK
DGDevin
> Sorry, but that's not how it works in
> the real world. If I own a painting that I bought for $100 ten years
> ago from a struggling artist and the artist subsequently becomes a
> world reknowned master, the value of my painting will go up even if I
> don't sell it. There are countless other examples that would
> illustrate this point, and you're too bright to need me to bring them
> up.
Your not-very-creative attempts to dodge the point notwithstanding, do you
have to pay additional taxes on that now more-valuable painting since its
value has gone up? No? Then why should you have to pay higher taxes
because your house would now sell for more than you paid for it?
> Actually, I will bring up one more that's even more to the point.
> Let's say I buy a house for $100,000. Ten years later, I add a garage,
> a deck, and a basement apartment. Should I continue to pay taxes for
> all eternity based on the price I bought the house for despite these
> improvements? No, of course not, you say? Then how do the town
> determine how much additional tax I should pay?
Why should you pay any more in taxes because you improved your home? You
keep side-stepping this point, WHY does the increased value of your house
increase your taxes? What justification is there for the city taking more
money from you simply because you put in a finished basement? They don't
tax you on the increased value of your Dead tape collection, they don't tax
you on the increased value of the vintage wine in your cellar, so how come
they get to hold you up on the value of your home?
>>Who says it's the only fair way? Businesses pay taxes per square foot, is
>>there some reason that isn't applied to residential properties?
>
> You surprise me. You can't be so naive as to think square footage is
> the sole determinant of business property taxes, can you?
To quote you, "> Ah, yet another instance of putting false words into
someone's mouth."
> Do you
> really think that the owner of a 20,000 square foot office in the
> heart of Wall Street will pay the same taxes as the owner of the same
> size office in a less desirable section of Manhattan? Square footage
> is always a factor in property assessments, but it's far from the only
> one.
Quote me saying it is the only factor.
> So when you said "the cost of services is an invalid argument" you
> were referring only to water from city pipes? When you said "there is
> no need to tie services to property taxes" you were only referring to
> those pipes again? So is that the only service a town offers??
Fascinating how you expand or contract the focus depending on the point you
want to make, in this case you apparently can't make the connection between
a specific mention of city water pipes and utilities in general.
>>Gonna need a translator on this one. And if you mean higher fees for a
>>better school, why would that bother you, you want to tax people more for
>>living in a better house don't you?
>
> Just a joke, DG. I was humorously suggesting that if you wanted your
> kids to get better grades, you might have to pay a higher user fee.
Ah, pity, it fit so well with your view that redoing the kitchen should
raise your taxes.
> I understand the concept completely; I just don't agree with it. And
> again, that's not an endorsement of property taxes.
That's sort of like saying you want executions done by painless lethal
injection but you're not endorsing capital punishment.
>>I paid taxes when I bought my wife's
>>wedding ring, should I have to pay more now because the price of gold has
>>gone up since then?
> These are all bogus arguments which I think I've pretty well addressed
> elsewhere, so I'm not going to bother again.
Huh, I must have missed the part where you explained why the increased value
of my other property isn't taxed the same way my home is.
DGDevin
> One last time.......
Repeating the same bogus point doesn't make it any more persuasive.
They tax our income, they tax most everything we buy, they tax us when we
die and try to leave money to our heirs, they tax us every time our money
changes hands. Isn't that enough? Why should they also tax us on our
principle property when no money is changing hands? For someone who says he
isn't defending property taxes you sure find a lot of way to defend property
taxes.
JimK
wrote:
>"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
>news:12aae2hit5of8nfqn...@4ax.com...
>
>> Sorry, but that's not how it works in
>> the real world. If I own a painting that I bought for $100 ten years
>> ago from a struggling artist and the artist subsequently becomes a
>> world reknowned master, the value of my painting will go up even if I
>> don't sell it. There are countless other examples that would
>> illustrate this point, and you're too bright to need me to bring them
>> up.
>
>Your not-very-creative attempts to dodge the point notwithstanding, do you
>have to pay additional taxes on that now more-valuable painting since its
>value has gone up? No? Then why should you have to pay higher taxes
>because your house would now sell for more than you paid for it?
That's an easy one. There are no property taxes that apply to
paintings. If there were, the tax would be based on its current
appraised value, not its purchase price. I used the example of a
painting merely to illustrate the concept that property does increase
in value even if it's not sold.
>
>> Actually, I will bring up one more that's even more to the point.
>> Let's say I buy a house for $100,000. Ten years later, I add a garage,
>> a deck, and a basement apartment. Should I continue to pay taxes for
>> all eternity based on the price I bought the house for despite these
>> improvements? No, of course not, you say? Then how do the town
>> determine how much additional tax I should pay?
>
>Why should you pay any more in taxes because you improved your home? You
>keep side-stepping this point, WHY does the increased value of your house
>increase your taxes? What justification is there for the city taking more
>money from you simply because you put in a finished basement? They don't
>tax you on the increased value of your Dead tape collection, they don't tax
>you on the increased value of the vintage wine in your cellar, so how come
>they get to hold you up on the value of your home?
Why are there any taxes at all? All taxes are arbitrary, and
governments decide what types of taxes they want to use to collect
revenue. Property taxes are one of them, for better or worse, and
governments arbitrarily decide what types of property will be subject
to the tax. The items you mentioned are not; if they were, the tax
would be based on their current value. Just like your income taxes are
based on your current income, not your income from ten years ago.
As far as home improvements increasing your taxes, if you don't
understand the concept of property taxes being based on current
values, then there's no point trying to explain it.
>
>>>Who says it's the only fair way? Businesses pay taxes per square foot, is
>>>there some reason that isn't applied to residential properties?
>>
>> You surprise me. You can't be so naive as to think square footage is
>> the sole determinant of business property taxes, can you?
>
>To quote you, "> Ah, yet another instance of putting false words into
>someone's mouth."
How so? You said that businesses pay taxes per square foot. You
mentioned no other factors.
>
>> Do you
>> really think that the owner of a 20,000 square foot office in the
>> heart of Wall Street will pay the same taxes as the owner of the same
>> size office in a less desirable section of Manhattan? Square footage
>> is always a factor in property assessments, but it's far from the only
>> one.
>
>Quote me saying it is the only factor.
Quote yourself saying there are other factors.
>
>> So when you said "the cost of services is an invalid argument" you
>> were referring only to water from city pipes? When you said "there is
>> no need to tie services to property taxes" you were only referring to
>> those pipes again? So is that the only service a town offers??
>
>Fascinating how you expand or contract the focus depending on the point you
>want to make, in this case you apparently can't make the connection between
>a specific mention of city water pipes and utilities in general.
???
>
>>>Gonna need a translator on this one. And if you mean higher fees for a
>>>better school, why would that bother you, you want to tax people more for
>>>living in a better house don't you?
>>
>> Just a joke, DG. I was humorously suggesting that if you wanted your
>> kids to get better grades, you might have to pay a higher user fee.
>
>Ah, pity, it fit so well with your view that redoing the kitchen should
>raise your taxes.
>
>> I understand the concept completely; I just don't agree with it. And
>> again, that's not an endorsement of property taxes.
>
>That's sort of like saying you want executions done by painless lethal
>injection but you're not endorsing capital punishment.
No, it's not. Nowhere in any of my posts do I endorse property taxes
on other than a minimal basis as a means of collecting tax revenue.
Trying to explain the concept is not the same as endorsing it.
>
>>>I paid taxes when I bought my wife's
>>>wedding ring, should I have to pay more now because the price of gold has
>>>gone up since then?
>
>> These are all bogus arguments which I think I've pretty well addressed
>> elsewhere, so I'm not going to bother again.
>
>Huh, I must have missed the part where you explained why the increased value
>of my other property isn't taxed the same way my home is.
>
See above.
I give up.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
Quote one statement where I defended property taxes. Just one.
JimK
Andy Gefen
wrote:
Let the record show that I agree with you. Going strictly by purchase
date for purposes of assessments would lend itself to ridiculous
inequities.
JimK
Please try to explain that to DG. I've given up.
JimK
Mark Hood
That is indeed how it works in CA -- the current property tax system
was put into place with the passage of Proposition 13 decades ago, by
property owners who revolted against constantly rising taxes tied to
California's insane property values. I'm actually surprised that
other states haven't had similar taxpayer revolts, but perhaps it's
the special circumstances of property appreciation in CA.
Under the current CA system, property taxes do increase over time
under the same owner, subject to local needs, but at a much smaller
rate than the market value of the property. The tax is only allowed
to account for the current market value when the property changes
ownership.
I bought a house in San Francisco in 1995 (about the last time I
posted to RMGD :)), and its market value has tripled since then (damn
dot-commers). I wouldn't be able to afford to continue owning it if
the property taxes on it had risen at the same pace. On the other
hand, my next door neighbors want to move out and buy a smaller home
in the city, but they've decided to stay put since they wouldn't be
able to afford the taxes on the new property.
The disparity in taxes paid between new and established owners doesn't
seem particularly unfair to me -- when you buy a house, you carefully
consider what you can afford, including the property tax, and if you
can't afford it, you should look elsewhere. What's unfair about that?
I don't see a problem with favoring residents who have lived in and
supported a neighborhood over many years. Isn't it unreasonable to
expect people to pay huge increases in tax based on market values that
they have no control over, with no way to estimate and plan for it in
the long term, and without a commensurate increase in their personal
income?
That said, it was the passage of Prop 13 with no revenue to replace it
that helped transform California from a state with some of the finest
public schools and infrastructure in the nation into the sad condition
it's in now. I'd much rather see increased state and local income
taxes with user fees that are distributed equitably amongst the
renters and home owners who benefit equally from public services.
-- Mark
DGDevin
> That's an easy one. There are no property taxes that apply to
> paintings. If there were, the tax would be based on its current
> appraised value, not its purchase price. I used the example of a
> painting merely to illustrate the concept that property does increase
> in value even if it's not sold.
It is because it is? And keep quiet about them taxing other property in the
same manner, if the Dems win the next election it could come to that. ;^)
> As far as home improvements increasing your taxes, if you don't
> understand the concept of property taxes being based on current
> values, then there's no point trying to explain it.
You already explained it when you used the word, "arbitrary."
> How so? You said that businesses pay taxes per square foot. You
> mentioned no other factors.
Which entitles you to claim that I'm saying there are no other factors?
>>Quote me saying it is the only factor.
>
> Quote yourself saying there are other factors.
Cool, this is a two-edged sword, right? You'll provide exhaustive footnotes
in future?
> I give up.
One last point, on the issue of "fairness," shouldn't decades of paying
property taxes be taken into account? Why shouldn't someone who just
arrived in town have to pay more than someone who has already coughed up
tens of thousands of dollars (or more) over the years? Yeah, I know,
"arbitrary."
DGDevin
>
> Please try to explain that to DG. I've given up.
>
> JimK
Try explaining it to young families who can't afford a home because the
property taxes have spiralled out of sight.
DGDevin
news:ygf8xll...@invalid.invalid...
> I bought a house in San Francisco in 1995 (about the last time I
> posted to RMGD :)), and its market value has tripled since then (damn
> dot-commers). I wouldn't be able to afford to continue owning it if
> the property taxes on it had risen at the same pace. On the other
> hand, my next door neighbors want to move out and buy a smaller home
> in the city, but they've decided to stay put since they wouldn't be
> able to afford the taxes on the new property.
There you go, gentrification by taxation.
> The disparity in taxes paid between new and established owners doesn't
> seem particularly unfair to me -- when you buy a house, you carefully
> consider what you can afford, including the property tax, and if you
> can't afford it, you should look elsewhere. What's unfair about that?
> I don't see a problem with favoring residents who have lived in and
> supported a neighborhood over many years.
Exactly, what's "fair" about increasing the taxes of pensioners who are on a
fixed income because a bunch of yuppie scum moved into the area and put in
pools?
> That said, it was the passage of Prop 13 with no revenue to replace it
> that helped transform California from a state with some of the finest
> public schools and infrastructure in the nation into the sad condition
> it's in now. I'd much rather see increased state and local income
> taxes with user fees that are distributed equitably amongst the
> renters and home owners who benefit equally from public services.
>
> -- Mark
Renters pay their way via their landlords, if city fees go up the landlords
just raise rents. Oddly enough California landlords didn't seem to pass on
the savings from Prop 13 to their tennants, what a shock. I'm also
surprised at things like a fixed water use fee with no metering, no wonder
people water their lawns every other day even during a drought, if they paid
by the gallon they'd put in bark chips instead of grass.
Brad Greer
wrote:
>One last point, on the issue of "fairness," shouldn't decades of paying
>property taxes be taken into account? Why shouldn't someone who just
>arrived in town have to pay more than someone who has already coughed up
>tens of thousands of dollars (or more) over the years? Yeah, I know,
>"arbitrary."
>
Why? You received services for the years of taxes you paid, the
person who just moved into town didn't receive any. That's hardly
arbitrary, it's saying everybody will pay for town-provided services
based on the value of their property.
JimK
wrote:
>"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
Do you have any concept of what taxes are and what their purpose is?
Town budgets are determined on an annual basis and property taxes fund
a town's budget for the current tax year. Why on earth would it matter
how much you paid in taxes in prior years?
JimK
JimK
wrote:
>"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
But you're the one who wants to have those young families who are just
buying a home for the first time to pay an inequitably high share of
the property tax burden while long time owners pay less.
For the last time, property taxes (which I do not, repeat, do not
support or endorse) don't usually rise due to increases in property
values that are not related to property improvements. They rise when
budgets go up or the tax base goes down.
JimK