From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 29-Mar-15 13:22, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Many people have bad vision.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Simple solution: give school districts the power to tax, and required   
   them to the self-supporting.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Sales (and payroll) taxes are regressive, so that's actually a scheme to   
   redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich--though I'm sure he sold   
   it as the exact opposite of that.   
      
   Income taxes are usually pitched as progressive, but in practice they   
   end up being regressive as well.   
      
   Both are stupid if you want to grow your economy; sales taxes are a tax   
   on consumption, which is an indirect tax on production, and income (and   
   payroll) taxes are a tax on production, which is an indirect tax on   
   consumption.  Also, in good years, the govt spends its windfall like   
   crazy, while in bad years, it either racks up debt or severely cuts   
   spending; both are feedback loops contributing to the boom/bust cycle,   
   which benefits the rich and hurts the poor.   
      
   OTOH, property taxes do not tax consumption _or_ production, and they   
   are also very stable, _preventing_ such bubbles.   
      
   > Also, it's important to note that the market value of a property may   
   > be very different to its value to the individual who lives or works   
   > there.  For instance, a poor elderly person may have a modest home   
   > they're perfectly content with and can afford.  But if the house is   
   > forcibly acquired by the govt, they may get an insufficient amount   
   > to find another adequate dwelling space.   
      
   The fair market value of a property is roughly what it would cost to   
   replace it with an equivalent property.  If the govt doesn't pay FMV in   
   an eminent domain action, you can take them to court.   
      
   True, that doesn't cover sentimental value, but that's life.  My first   
   car had a lot of sentimental value, but it wasn't worth keeping when   
   trading it in for a new one cost less than the necessary repairs.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)