| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Yet another Ebay sap..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll....cWAT.m240.lVI
What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
wrote in message What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? Simple....some dumb ass out there will buy it. On e-bay there is one born every 45 seconds |
Yet another Ebay sap..
wrote in message ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll....cWAT.m240.lVI What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
In article , "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...X:IT&it em=15 0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth. LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
"Leon" wrote in message . net... wrote in message ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll....cWAT.m240.lVI What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth. L: 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 www.zillow.com . Regards, Edward Hennessey |
Yet another Ebay sap..
amazing yes..
but why does it annoy you? why would it be any of your business what someone pays for anything wrote in message ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll....cWAT.m240.lVI What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Leon" wrote: wrote in message ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...X:IT&it em=15 0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth. LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it. -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
Yet another Ebay sap..
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message ...
Doug Miller wrote: In article , "Leon" wrote: wrote in message ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...X:IT&it em=15 0177233443&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. I hate it when that happens. Housing does that. The government thinks my house is worth about twice what I think my house is worth. LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it. One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
"Dan Coby" wrote:
some snippage LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it. One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value. Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the valuations fairly honest. Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ |
Yet another Ebay sap..
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. 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 doesn't it? |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Nov 17, 4:41 am, Kevin M. Vernon
wrote: "Dan Coby" wrote: some snippage LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it. One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value. Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the valuations fairly honest. Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ Not around here unless you're quick. Re-evaluation is done every four years. I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of 67% to well over 150% have been fairly common. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
"Dan Coby" wrote: some snippage LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it. One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value. Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the valuations fairly honest. Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. That's kind of how it works (or worked at one time) in California. For long-time residents it becomes a trap--relocate and you have to either downsize _way_ down or take a big tax increase. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Yet another Ebay sap..
J. Clarke wrote:
Kevin M. Vernon wrote: "Dan Coby" wrote: some snippage LOL - we've had some real problems with escalating property taxes here in Indiana. One proposed solution is a law requiring the tax assessor to buy any house at its assessed value if the homeowner wishes to sell it. Now *that* is a creative solution; I like it. One of the Sci Fi writers (I think that it was Clarke) wrote about a society where the assessment for a property was set by the owner. However anyone was allowed to buy the property at the currently assessed value. Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the valuations fairly honest. Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. That's kind of how it works (or worked at one time) in California. For long-time residents it becomes a trap--relocate and you have to either downsize _way_ down or take a big tax increase. But you know what your tax will be and can decide on the purchase accordingly. If you buy, you can budget your tax bill for as long as you own the house. Before Prop 13 (initiative that set the tax plan), my assessed valuation/tax bill had tripled and was about to double again. Now I had a question of whether I could pay the taxes and still buy milk and beer. Great solution for homeowners. The effect on commercial properties is not so good for the state. ... rant off, jo4hn |
Yet another Ebay sap..
I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of
67% to well over 150% have been fairly common. Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is hot. When it goes into the ****ter (like now) they should also reasses. Taxes should fluctuate with the market. If the value of my house goes down so should my taxes. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
|
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Nov 17, 12:28 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
wrote: I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of 67% to well over 150% have been fairly common. Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is hot. When it goes into the ****ter (like now) they should also reasses. Taxes should fluctuate with the market. If the value of my house goes down so should my taxes. But that would mean less money for the politicians to use for buying votes. There aren't very many politicians or government entities willing to do with *less* money; it never occurs to them to cut expenses, only to find other sources of revenue. -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough Actually, they do a revision of the taxes, too, but, as yet, we're not sure how we'll come out on the next swat in the wallet. My guess is, northeasterners will still head this way, because taxes tend to be about 20% to 30% of what they are in Joisey, NY, CT and such places. As the tax bill rises here, it rises by even more up there. Of course, as we get all these people down here who want sidewalks, streetlights, cops on every corner (we've pretty much got that, as Bedford County is seriously over-copped), "free" garbage pick-up, better schools (AKA as more highly paid teachers and more expensive buildings, and more of both), and such city niceties, the taxes will rise accordingly. I watched this **** happen 50 years ago in Westchester County, and Bedford and Franklin Counties are going the same way, but without the solid base of NYC to accept the daytime workers. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWAX:I... What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. Why annoy? It's their money; what they do with it is their business. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:27:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Around here they only do a reassessment when the housing market is hot. Are you sure? Most areas do it on a regular schedule, and the assessor can usually tell you when you're due next. It would seem that at-will reassessments would be a real political hot button at election time. --------------------------------------------- ** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html ** --------------------------------------------- |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
: : Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one : wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that : valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that : listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner : immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective : buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years : back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the : valuations fairly honest. And it would tend to have a lot of people get displaced from their homes by developers with deep pockets. No thanks. : Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax : rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property : the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. There's some good thoughts there. Would help out a lot of old folks who get taxed out of their homes when prices go up after 40 years. -- Andy Barss |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:43:44 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
wrote: Not around here unless you're quick. Re-evaluation is done every four years. I've never known it to go down, overall, and recently, jumps of 67% to well over 150% have been fairly common. Same here except the appraised/assessed value increases every year, along with the mill levy. I'd love to have a 4 year cycle. I'm now paying taxes on an appraised value that is 63% greater than the original appraisal and the effective mill levy has increased enough to make the tax bill double what it was when we had the house built. Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Andrew Barss wrote:
Kevin M. Vernon wrote: : : Heinlein. In "Number of the Beast." One set whatever value one : wished upon one's property & paid property taxes based upon that : valuation - BUT - anyone could, at any time, buy a property AT that : listed valuation, against the owner's wishes, UNLESS said owner : immediately raised his valuation to the point that the prospective : buyer no longer wished to buy - PLUS immediately paid 5 years : back-taxes on the new valuation. That part would tend to keep the : valuations fairly honest. And it would tend to have a lot of people get displaced from their homes by developers with deep pockets. No thanks. As opposed to the way it is now, when people get displaced from their home by developers with deep pockets - by simply shoveling that deepness at the politicians in return for some eminent domain legislation. Sure, that would happen in some cases. Any more than it does now? I doubt it. But then I wasn't advocating that particular scheme, simply fleshing out the details for the O.P. who brought it up. : Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax : rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property : the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. There's some good thoughts there. Would help out a lot of old folks who get taxed out of their homes when prices go up after 40 years. -- Andy Barss This one I do quite like. After all, an "Assesment" is simply an estimate or guess of what your property might be worth, in someone's opinion. It's worth what somebody will pay for it. Pay taxes on the purchase price. Next guy that buys it - pays taxes on THAT purchase price. It's not worth diddly poo, until you actually sell it for something - and then whatever you sold it for is what it was worth. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ |
Yet another Ebay sap..
In article , Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types of taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever to the taxpayer's ability to pay -- leading to retirees being forced to sell homes they've owned for decades, because they can't afford the taxes on a property that has appreciated substantially since they bought it. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Kevin M. Vernon wrote in
: *snip* Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government. Puckdropper -- Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Doug Miller wrote:
That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types of taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever to the taxpayer's ability to pay -- leading to retirees being forced to sell homes they've owned for decades, because they can't afford the taxes on a property that has appreciated substantially since they bought it. At least here in Washington State, for a primary residence there is a serious property tax exemption for lower income seniors.....It is a nefarious plot to get their votes on school levy's...vote yes for the tax, feel good about helping the deprived children and the schools and it still won't cost you anythingG. Rod |
Yet another Ebay sap..
"Doug Miller" wrote in message et... That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types of taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever to the taxpayer's ability to pay THAT makes sense to you? I thought it was to pay for government services, though I don't see the folks on municipal water helping when my pump goes on the fritz, while I subsidize them. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
No, it would just be bad for honest taxpayers. What seems to be missed
in all of these discussions on how the property tax should be structured is that they are just schemes to shove the tax off on someone else. None of them have anything to do with the spending side of the equation. I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years. Dave Hall On 18 Nov 2007 22:33:46 GMT, Puckdropper wrote: Kevin M. Vernon wrote in : *snip* Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government. Puckdropper |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Puckdropper wrote:
Kevin M. Vernon wrote in : *snip* Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government. Then, the gov would come along and tell you they need to put an off ramp where your property is, and since it's only worth a buck... |
Yet another Ebay sap..
In article , Dave Hall wrote:
I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years. Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals and tax assessments are only guesses. Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it ain't necessarily so. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
In article , "George" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types of taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever to the taxpayer's ability to pay THAT makes sense to you? I thought it was to pay for government services, though I don't see the folks on municipal water helping when my pump goes on the fritz, while I subsidize them. The point is that it's hardly fair to assess a tax on someone who lacks the ability to pay it. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
|
Yet another Ebay sap..
Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. Just for the sake of argument/illustration, assume two identical houses in equivalent locations (ATSG, the three most important things in real estate are location, location, and location). One has been owned by the same person for many years and was purchased at the market value existing at that time - say $100,000. The other was purchased in the prevailing market last week for - say $200,000. So, the owner of the first property pays half the taxes that are paid by the owner of the second identical property. Something about that seems a little inequitable to me. I like the idea presented in Heinlein's Number of the Beast. I'm sure there are methods that could be implemented to prevent deep-pocket takeovers of contiguous properties. Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA |
Yet another Ebay sap..
In article , Dave Hall wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Dave Hall wrote: I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years. Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals and tax assessments are only guesses. Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it ain't necessarily so. Well, I guess that I assume that in a world with an active market (which is true in most of the country, but could be wrong in some lightly populated areas) it is pretty easy to compute a reasonably accurate assessment One would suppose so, yes. In practice, it normally doesn't work out that way, suggesting that either the assumption is flawed or the assessors are idiots. Maybe both. and since most jurisdictions provide for an appeal process, I assume the overall assessment process is reasonably fair. That's *definitely* not a valid assumption. If it isn't in your part of the world, that is a political problem, not a problem with the concept. IMO it's a problem with both: it's easier to distort a process that's flawed to begin with. However, to put a possibly clearer description on my point, "I see no reason why my neighbor who has" a house just like mine with the same actual market value as mine Assumption! but who has"lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years". But until the house sells, you _don't_know_ what its actual market value is. I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for. And a lot don't, too. Just being old should not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society has decided to spend society's money. Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should. If the argument would truly be about equitable distribution of the tax burden then it would be a good discussion, but it is pretty much always about how the person talking can screw someone else into paying the taxes. I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes that I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm required to, and not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone else into paying the taxes. The best debate would be about how much society should actually be spending and only then an equitable distribution of the burden. Oh, absolutely. Seems these days everybody wants all kinds of spending, but nobody wants to pay for it. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Puckdropper wrote:
Kevin M. Vernon wrote in : *snip* Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government. Puckdropper Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing. After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving whiskey & car keys to 17 year olds. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Doug Winterburn wrote in
: Puckdropper wrote: Kevin M. Vernon wrote in : *snip* Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government. Then, the gov would come along and tell you they need to put an off ramp where your property is, and since it's only worth a buck... It's an awful funny place for an off ramp... Imagine a mound of dirt, new asphalt, nicely painted lines, starting off in a field and ending there. That's the problem with going by the last sold price. Now, that's not to say that last sold price shouldn't play a role in the assessment of the property's value. Perhaps use it as a beginning point rather than an end point. Puckdropper -- Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:08:00 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon
wrote: Puckdropper wrote: Kevin M. Vernon wrote in m: *snip* Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price HE paid for it. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1 and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad for government. Puckdropper Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing. In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending, not taxes. After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving whiskey & car keys to 17 year olds. -Kevin in Indy To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:44:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , Dave Hall wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Dave Hall wrote: I see no reason why my neighbor who has lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years. Partly because the only accurate gauge of the value of the home is the price for which it sold on the open market. Selling price is hard data. Appraisals and tax assessments are only guesses. Also, you're assuming that your neighbor's property value has appreciated significantly during that time. While this is usually a valid assumption, it ain't necessarily so. Well, I guess that I assume that in a world with an active market (which is true in most of the country, but could be wrong in some lightly populated areas) it is pretty easy to compute a reasonably accurate assessment One would suppose so, yes. In practice, it normally doesn't work out that way, suggesting that either the assumption is flawed or the assessors are idiots. Maybe both. Again, if in an active market your assessors are not getting pretty close, it is a political problem since it ain't rocket science. Even every little real estate agent gets pretty damn close when pricing houses. and since most jurisdictions provide for an appeal process, I assume the overall assessment process is reasonably fair. That's *definitely* not a valid assumption. Political problem again, must be bad judges if they allow gross over assessments when you bring valid sales data and comparable property data to the appeal. If it isn't in your part of the world, that is a political problem, not a problem with the concept. IMO it's a problem with both: it's easier to distort a process that's flawed to begin with. However, to put a possibly clearer description on my point, "I see no reason why my neighbor who has" a house just like mine with the same actual market value as mine Assumption! but who has"lived in his house for 20 years should pay significantly less than me just because I have only lved in my house for 10 years". But until the house sells, you _don't_know_ what its actual market value is. Again, if there is any market at all you do "know", at least as well as you know the earth is round, that the sun will rise in the morning and that congress will do something stupid the next time it meets. All are assumptions, but pretty solidly based in experience. I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for. And a lot don't, too. Just being old should not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society has decided to spend society's money. Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should. Poor has nothing to do with age or how long someone has owned a home. If the argument would truly be about equitable distribution of the tax burden then it would be a good discussion, but it is pretty much always about how the person talking can screw someone else into paying the taxes. I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes that I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm required to, and not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone else into paying the taxes. But the whole discussion has been about people considering tax structures that end up with them paying less taxes. By definition they are then talking about how to make other people pay more in taxes. The best debate would be about how much society should actually be spending and only then an equitable distribution of the burden. Oh, absolutely. Seems these days everybody wants all kinds of spending, but nobody wants to pay for it. AMEN, brother! |
Yet another Ebay sap..
Dave Hall wrote:
... snip I look at that a bit differently: I want to pay the bare minimum in taxes that I can pay while still complying with the law -- just what I'm required to, and not a penny more. Not quite the same as screwing someone else into paying the taxes. But the whole discussion has been about people considering tax structures that end up with them paying less taxes. By definition they are then talking about how to make other people pay more in taxes. Why should that be the case? Isn't about time to start demanding that the government make do with the money it is already receiving and to live within those means? -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:17:15 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending, not taxes I agree the spending should be addressed. But, assume the spending is cut in half and you're still facing the problem of how to equitably spread the tax load to support that reduced level of spending. Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA |
Yet another Ebay sap..
On Nov 16, 3:25 pm, wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWAX:I... What compels someone to offer a bid for a used item that is higher than the price for the new item? The plane isn't exactly an antique collectible. Never ceases to amaze as well annoy. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter