From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:24:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   >>Landowners just pass on property taxes to their tenants anyway, so there   
   >>is no reason for them to prefer any other form of tax--unless they have   
   >>no tenants, i.e. they're speculators.   
      
   >That assumes the tenants can afford to pay increased rent to pay the   
   >taxes.  If not, the landowner is screwed.  Such is often the situation   
   >in older cities, where the demand for taxes is high to pay for more   
   >social services, yet the population has less money.  It often ends up in   
   >abandoned property.   
      
   >Often times a city council will pass such high taxes knowing the   
   >landlords can't do anything about it in the short run (and politicians   
   >only care about the short-run).   
      
   Still missing the concept. The taxes are based on the land's assessed   
   value, which is what it can earn in rent. If it doesn't have the ability   
   to earn what the assessment says, then it's overassessed. You're not   
   arguing against the concept, just that there can be bad assessments out there.   
      
   Well, gee, there are bad assessments right now.   
      
   >Indeed, one key issue this land-use discussion has ignored is that real   
   >estate is not a liquid asset.   
      
   There's an equity line, essentially a second mortgage. Also, many   
   jurisdictions offer the option to defer tax collections with liens,   
   which helps the elderly.   
      
   >A town can raise taxes overnight, but it will take a property owner much   
   >time to adjust--be it do something different with the land, e.g. build   
   >something or sell it off.   
      
   In my state, taxes cannot be raised overnight. They have to go through   
   notice and public hearings and a truth-in-taxation process.   
      
   >Further, maximizing land use profit is limited by zoning, laws, historical   
   >designation, etc.  Laws are passed regulating land use for quality of   
   >life reasons.   
      
   Then if laws limit land value to less-than-highest-and-best-use, the   
   land will be assessed accordingly. That's the point.   
      
   >Also, the concept advanced that land is taxed based on various services   
   >given to it is b/s.   
      
   That's NOT the concept at all. Land value is based on natural resources,   
   location, what your neighbors do, and what government does. It's hardly   
   based entirely on what government does.   
      
   Point is, land value has nothing to do with what YOU do. Your actions   
   will affect your neighbors' land value, though.   
      
   >Government needs taxes, and taxes everything--land, income, commerce--to   
   >the extent it can get away with it.  In many areas, official land   
   >"valuation" is utter b/s.   
      
   Assessments are public, hancock, so they can't hide it. That's not   
   true of anything else that's taxable.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)