From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 10:12:30 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   >>If the current use is not the highest and best use of the land, then the   
   >>total property value should be less than the land value, to account for   
   >>the cost of clearing the current improvements.  IOW, the improvements'   
   >>value would be negative--yet another reason to tax only land value.   
      
   >There is a broader issue, and that is the ability of the landowner to   
   >pay taxes.   
      
   You're completely missing the point. If the landowner can't afford to   
   pay taxes on the value of land, it's because the land isn't earning   
   any rent. It's not earning any rent because the landowner is speculating   
   in vacant land, or he's a slumlord allowing a building to deteriorate   
   and can't find good tenants, etc.   
      
   If the land earns rent, then a portion of that can go back to the government   
   in taxes, absolutely fair as part of the land value was created by   
   the value of government services.   
      
   Oh: There's a macroeconomic concept of "imputed rent" in which the landowner   
   who is also using his own property is paying rent to himself.   
      
   >Many, many years ago government got away from just taxing real estate   
   >and taxed income and commerce.  Generally, these were percentage--not   
   >flat fee taxes--so they more money one earned or spent, the more in   
   >taxes they paid.  This was seen to be more fair.   
      
   By landowners, yeah. By tenants, not so much.   
      
   >In many states, property taxes pay only a portion of the cost of public   
   >schools.  The rest of the money comes from general municipal or state   
   >taxes.  The proportion breakdown is hotly debated.   
      
   >The newly elected governor of Pennslyvania has proposed steep increases   
   >in the state sales tax (both in rate and in items taxed) as well as the   
   >state income tax, so as to lower property taxes.  Basically, this is a   
   >wealth re-distribution scheme.   
      
   From whom to whom?   
      
   >It's important to note that external events impact nearby property   
   >owners very unevenly.  For instance, depending on where one's property   
   >is and its layout, a new freeway interchange could cause its value to   
   >explode.  But it could--and often does--cause its value to steeply fall.   
      
   If government creates a negative impact, which can certainly happen,   
   then why is it unfair that a reduced assessment results in paying less   
   tax? According to you, the landowner should pay tax on his consumption   
   and income, so he got screwed by government on the one hand, and still   
   pays about the same in taxes.   
      
   >Not every property is so situated or laid out to radically change its   
   >value.  It just becomes in the way, suffering from a great deal of   
   >noise, litter, trespassers, even crime.  It was documented that when the   
   >NJ Tpk widened, properties nearby suffered badly from the noise and   
   >pollution, but there is NO compensation from the state for that kind of   
   >loss. . . .   
      
   Then why do you argue against yourself?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)