On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   > On 29-Mar-15 13:22, hancock4wrote:   
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > If he can't pay the taxes, then he's a shitty businessman, and he should   
   > sell his property to someone who can do a better job of it.   
      
   But what about retired or unemployed individuals who can no longer afford the   
   taxes on their homes because they went up so steeply and their retirement   
   income failed to keep up?  That's one of the reasons people argue for other   
   tax sources, since    
   something like an income tax at least closer matches income and ability to pay.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)