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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (14346)	6/6/2002 6:47:31 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The property taxes are not a tax on an increase in wealth. I would pay the same property taxes on my house whether I had bought it for 15 cents of $45mil. But in a way it is a tax on the increase in wealth, at least where I live, because the more valuable my property the more tax I pay, and if my property appreciates in value more than the property down the street my property taxes go up faster than theirs do.

To: TimF who wrote (14346)	6/10/2002 7:06:31 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Small changes make a big difference. Much better and a "typical" Tim post. . I already pay more in property taxes, but your argument seemed to be that I should be taxed on my increase in wealth. What I was tryint to argue was that wealth acquired through tax deferred mechanisms should eventually be taxed. I believe that the tax deferred status should not pass beyond the life of the person having those tax deferred benefits that they rightly used during their lifetime. I'll say [and firmly believe] that the way we collect taxes makes little to no sense in terms of equitibility. I've got a 4,500 sq ft house in MD in a rather nice region. If I were back in MD, there woud be no children living at the house, just my wife and I. Yet the bulk of the property tax goes to funding public education. Does that make any sense what so ever? No. My income has virtually nothing to do with what Federal or State services I receive compared to other income brackets. It makes no sense. How much sense does it make that if you can claim more dependents, your tax liability does down? If taxes made sense, your tax liability would go up. While we can cite examples that illustrate that it doesn't make sense. It's a rather futile effort, because the fundamental decisions that were made on how the government collects taxes have no bearing on the reality of how those revenues are spent or how the services are distributed. You could define a system of taxes based on only those services that you want or use, but I'm sure that would be a total state of chaos. You could also define a system where everyone gets a bill per person; same dollar amount per person. My initial guess would be that the lower 40% couldn't pay it. Your stuck with either an inequitable system, or a non-functioning system. I'll take the inequitable system. The next choice that you might make is how to approach something that might be considered reasonable and fair. One option is that anything that gets closer to a flat bill is fairer. Another option is whether the system allows the greater possibility of more people accumulating wealth. This is a reasonable break point to check what you agree/disagree with and whether you subscribe to the former or the latter. jttmab