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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (10992)	6/3/2003 5:27:34 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>I'm still confused why if something goes up in value the owner should be taxed.<< inflation is for the government, not for you?? <g> seriously, it would be nice if government expenditures were naturally dropped back when the government inflated. But that's not the system.

To: MSI who wrote (10992)	6/3/2003 5:34:21 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I'm still confused why if something goes up in value the owner should be taxed. It's different than income tax it's called property tax. you don't have to have it, or any other taxes for that matter, if you don't mind your community being turned into a Brazil where anarchy prevails among the general public while rich people build their own private parks (in their country clubs and backyards and in armored villas), buy their own education (private schools), and pay for their own security (gated communities and armed private security). if you are rich enough, of course you would rather have low taxes, because you can now easily afford all these private amenities. who cares about the lower 99.5% of the country? President Bush is Your Friend! this is the inevitable result in a government where revenues persistently fall short of expenditures. you either increase revenues (taxes) or reduce services. when you reduce services, the majority of people will have to cope with reduced services, whereas the rich will just pay for their own Enhanced Services. this is definitely happening all across the country right now, and it will of course get much worse in the future, thanks to our federal government's $44 trillion negative net worth (as per a study commissioned by the former Treasury Secretary and quashed by the Bush administration because it shows how pathetic our national fiscal situation is--this study was front page news in the Financial Times but was hushed up in the US press due to the need to perpetuate the lie of a solid dollar; add in all the negative net worths of the state and local governments, as well as all the public and private pension funds and all the inevitable bankruptcies in the wake of a busting real estate bubble, and you are probably looking at close to 10 times GDP in negative net worth, which is the greatest thing a gold investor could ask for, imo).

To: MSI who wrote (10992)	6/3/2003 5:56:27 PM
From: fatty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>I'm still confused why if something goes up in value the owner should be taxed. I think the government is entitled to tax on the land and the size of the structure but not on the structure's condition and cosmetic value. When we occupy a piece of land, we expect homeland security, so the tax is justified. When we build a bigger structure, the fire department may have to work harder to put out a fire, so the tax is justified. When we remodel our kitchen or put up a new roof, I don't think that's anyone's concern.