Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (65078)	12/5/1999 2:43:00 AM
From: MSB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Your response: Message 12188173 I'm a little confused about this particular line: The problem with these headlands is theres really no way to pull something like that off with simply a tax loophole, since these are revenue generating properties. How is an old growth forest an income producing property? Do you mean as in "potentially income producing", or are you inferring in another manner? The state in which I currently live has no personal property taxes which I'm aware of(the exception being automobiles), but I would think that anyone who could afford a piece of fine art or other high dollar item could pay the taxes on it. I would think that it would be the public who would benefit more by the art of private collectors being in museums so therefore its kind of a "pay to see it" tradeoff with regard to the tax issue. But I don't particularly like the idea of someone telling me what I can or can't do with a piece of property (after taking into consideration zoning laws, pre-existing land covenants, mineral rights, right of ways and so forth). Sounds to me like a bunch of people who don't want to take direct possession of the property, but yet seem to have no problem with telling someone what they can or can't do with the property. IMO, it essentially boils down to this with regard to our wilderness areas: Less of us means more of it.