An intelligent dialogue on the pros and cons
The following is a spontaneous dialogue by two individuals on our mailing list on
the pros and cons of our proposed constitutional amendment. It is reprinted here
because it is just the type of discussion that would have and should have become part of the public forum had our elected officials given
us what we had asked for: simply the opportunity
to vote on Washington's broken property tax system.
It is possible that our particular solution is not THE solution to the problem (although
we would beg to differ!), but denying us our right to vote on the issue severely
hampers the process of coming to the best conclusion.
Note: We have made every effort to reproduce this email exchange here as accurately
as possible. However, due to the necessary segmenting of the back-and-forth when
addressing specific comments, this is not a "true"representation of the
structure of the original emails.
Note: On occasion, we will
post additions to this dialogue (at the end) when we feel it enhances the understanding
of the topic.
The dialogue began with an email to predictabletax@earthlink.net:
-------------
[Mic]
I am intrigued by your group's activities. I don't really agree with you, and wondered
if you could help me understand something?
If we limit the assessed value to 1% each year, and only more when the property is
sold, don't you put a higher burden on mobility? That is, folks that stay in one
house their entire life pay a lower amount of taxes, which will cause the new homeowner
to pay more.
If we are to limit the ASSESSED value for taxing purposes, should we also limit what
they could actually SELL the house for. This may seem like an extreme example, but
one could own a house for 35 years, be paying taxes on assessed value of $150K, yet
be able to sell the house for more than twice that. Is that fair to the guy who just
bought a house, and is paying big bucks in taxes?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory. I'd like to be convinced this is a good
idea. After all, I just built a house, and have no reason to think I might move for
the next 25-30 years. This would certainly benefit me. But I fear that benefit comes
on the backs of my fellow residents.
-------------
predictabletax@earthlink.net response:
Thank you for your interest in our amendment proposal.
I suppose you could say this approach would put a higher burden on mobility, however....
The person purchasing a home has a choice: can he afford the house, can he afford
the upkeep and taxes?
The person who stays in their home has no choice: they are at the whim of the real
estate market. Of the two choices, our group has no qualms with paying more taxes
than their neighbor at the time of purchase - in fact assessors say they do not get
complaints from people who are assessed on the purchase price of their home.
They DO get complaints from those who choose to stay in their homes and are taxed
on unrealized value. This is a personal choice. People usually purchase three homes
in their lifetime: at marriage, after children, after retirement. Under our proposal,
everyone would be in the same situation at some time: either you are benefiting from
being the one who stays in their home and pays less, or you are the one who is paying
more at the time of purchase. But remember, that person will benefit as he stays
put...
Please visit our website for more info: www.predictabletax.com
Hope this helps to convince you.
-------------
Then his response went out to everyone on that email's "to" list. Note:
due to our "free" webmail program, we are unable to send a single email
to more than 100 recipients, therefore, this exchange did not go to several hundred
people on our email list.
-------------
[Mic]
I asked a question of the predictable tax folks, and now am on this list. So I will
give my opinion to all.
I must say I respect you all. But this proposal, if fully implemented creates "representation
without (equal) taxation." It punishes mobility and those that decide to buy
a bigger (or smaller) house as their life status changes. 20 years of this process
could result in two identical homes, being taxed at dramatically different rates.
Is that fair?
Another part of this is that if someone owned a single house for 20 years and then
sold it, they would receive much more for their home than it had been taxed on. Is
that fair?
Maybe a better change would be to make a flat property tax assessment on each parcel
that would be the same for all regardless of parcel value. Then, as taxes went up
or down, all would feel the pain, or the benefit......
Instead of making a predictable tax for those that live in the same house for many
years, how 'bout a predictable tax for everyone?
-------------
Which triggered this response:
-------------
[Chuck]
Sir,
I'm afraid your logic escapes me. I have offered my opinions after each of your points.
(And BTW, I'm not associated with the predictable tax folks other than I support
their goal.)
First off, you seem to be confusing tax rates with the value of the thing being taxed.
You may own a $1 million dollar house and I may own a $100,000 house but the tax
rate on both is the same. You will pay more simply because you spent more.
(Mic) But this proposal, if fully
implemented creates "representation without (equal) taxation."
I'm sorry, but that statement makes
absolutely no sense. The proposal, as I read it, doesn't create any "representation",
it simply stabilizes increases in property values.
(Mic) It punishes mobility and those
that decide to buy a bigger (or smaller) house as their life status changes.
I fail to see how it would punish
anyone. Anyone up/down sizing would pay the taxes on their new home's value, not
their old one.
What it would do is to keep them from being taxed out of their home at a future date
when property values have increased beyond their income.
(Mic) 20 years of this process could
result in two identical homes, being taxed at dramatically different rates.
Again, your $1 million dollar house
and my $100,000 house are taxed at the same rate. And yes, you are going to pay a
heck of a lot more in taxes than I am -- but that's simply because 10% of $1 million
is more than 10% of $100K.
Furthermore, I looked at the assessed values for about 8 blocks of my neighborhood
(on the county assessor's website) and guess what -- not a single one had the same
assessed value. In fact the assessed value of the homes on my block alone range from
$86K to $230K.
(Mic) Is that fair?
Let me ask you this:
My neighbor has the income to pay $1 million for his house today, while I only had
the income to pay $100K for my house yesterday -- is it fair that I have to pay taxes
based on their income?
The problem with taxes based on market value is that I'm getting taxed not on my
income, but on what my neighbor makes.
Market value taxation taxes phantom income that has no correlation to real income.
(Mic) Another part of this is that
if someone owned a single house for 20 years and then sold it, they would receive
much more for their home than it had been taxed on. Is that fair?
O.K., your reasoning on this one
totally escapes me.
The flip side to it is (also totally unrealistic): What if after 20 years they sold
it for less -- then they would have paid more in taxes than what they received. Would
they get a refund? I think not.
Is it fair that a retired person, a WalMart worker or any lower income person would
all of a sudden find their tax burden increased beyond their income level because
Bill Gates took an interest in the house next door and paid 6 times the market value?
(Mic) Maybe a better change would
be to make a flat property tax assessment on each parcel that would be the same for
all regardless of parcel value.
In other words, make the WalMart
worker pay more, and Bill Gates pay less.
(Mic) Instead of making a predictable
tax for those that live in the same house for many years, how 'bout a predictable
tax for everyone?
That's exactly what this proposal
does. It doesn't matter whether you bought your house yesterday or 20 years ago,
it keeps taxes at a level based on what you can afford to pay, not on what your neighbor
can afford to pay.
-----------
[Mic]
I do agree with you on one point though. Taxing based on values may not be the best
idea. But this proposal does not change that. It only artificially sets those values.
Do you disagree that this proposal ARTIFICIALLY sets a home's value?
----------
[Chuck]
And the assessor guesstimate of
what your house would sell for ISN'T setting an artificial value?
No one can say what a home would sell for until it's actually sold. Property values
can rise or they can fall. If they should fall (and it does happen), then it means
that you've been previously taxed on an artificial income that you never received.
Doesn't the fact that an entity that can tax you, also sets the value of what it's
taxing, bother you?
(Mic) Do you disagree that this
proposal ARTIFICIALLY sets a home's value?
Actually I do. The assessor already
ARTIFICIALLY sets the home's value. All the proposal does is limit the ability to
artificially set a new value -- that they then tax.
----------
[Mic]
OK, thanks for the response.
I won't argue most of your points, as we clearly disagree.
But I do see one contradiction in your statement. You said that the proposed system
would not create artificial values, but that the current system does. At least the
current system uses industry standard methods. (still a guesstimate) But the proposed
system, would not use those industry standards to set values, but an artificial limit
of 1% per year. Heck, even COLA is more than that.
Trust me, I am not advocating higher taxes here at all. I just think ALL people's
homes should be valued the same way. And that is based on standard industry methods
that have been used by government and the private sector alike.
You seem very intelligent, and have thought this process through. May I ask your
opinion on my theory that this punished people for expressing their right to free
movement. What I am getting at here, is a person that chooses to move throughout
the state many times in their life will pay much more in property taxes, (everything
else being equal) than the person who buys a house when they are 20, and never moves.
---------
[Chuck]
(Mic) OK, thanks for the response.
You are welcome.
(Mic) I won't argue most of your
points, as we clearly disagree.
See, I don't see it that way. We
are simply looking at it from different perspectives.
Two people, standing side by side, looking at the same thing, are going to see something
different. Talking about what they see, makes it sharper for both.
(Mic) But I do see one contradiction
in your statement. You said that the proposed system would not create artificial
values, but that the current system does. At least the current system uses industry
standard methods. (still a guesstimate) But the proposed system, would not use those
industry standards to set values, but an artificial limit of 1% per year. Heck, even
COLA is more than that.
Actually, the proposal doesn't change
the way values are set. It limits how fluctuations in market values affect your taxes.
Let's say you have the income to buy a $100K house. Four years later, your income
has only kept up with inflation (COLA's), or maybe (as is happening in a lot of industries)
you have to take a wage cut. None the less, you can still afford that $100K house.
Now lets say the area becomes very desirable (as ours has) and people who can afford
a $300K house pays that for the house next door to you.
All of a sudden, your house now has a $300K market value and you have to pay taxes
as if you had the income to pay that much.
It doesn't matter that you would never qualify for a $300K mortgage, you are going
to get taxed as if you could. And believe me, it hurts -- this is experience talking.
The proposal, by limiting the increase in your market value, takes the neighbor's
income out of the picture. It means you are going to get taxed on what you can afford,
not what they can.
It also means that another 4 years later, when someone buys the house on the other
side of you for $500k, you are not going to have to sell your house, because all
of a sudden their ability pay that kind of money, has put your tax bill way beyond
what you can afford.
When the house is eventually sold, as all are, the market value of the house is reset
to what the new owner paid.
(Mic) Trust me, I am not advocating
higher taxes here at all.
But that is exactly what is happening
with the current system. The government doesn't have to increase the tax rate, all
they have to do is increase the value of what they are taxing. 10% of $100K compared
to 10% of $300K.
(Mic) I just think ALL people's
homes should be valued the same way. And that is based on standard industry methods
that have been used by government and the private sector alike.
And it stays that way. The way a
home is valued isn't going to change. What will change is that the government is
not going to be able to tax you based on the higher income of your neighbor.
(Mic) You seem very intelligent,
Umm, thank you -- but I know LOTS
of people that would take issue with that.
(Mic) and have thought this process
through.
Wasn't by choice, more because it
was forced on me.
(Mic) May I ask your opinion on
my theory that this punished people for expressing their right to free movement.
What I am getting at here, is a person that chooses to move throughout the state
many times in their life will pay much more in property taxes, (everything else being
equal) than the person who buys a house when they are 20, and never moves.
I don't think it will punish anybody.
If you sold a house in Seattle and moved to Spokane, bought a bigger house for less
money, you'd end up paying less taxes because the market values are lower in Spokane.
Market values are based on local(e). If I could move my house to a different city,
I'd be paying taxes based on the market value there, not what it is here. In Moses
Lake it might be worth $50K, in Seattle it might be worth $500K.
But if the $50K market value in Moses Lake all of a sudden shot up to $500K -- I'd
lose my home... not because I couldn't pay my mortgage, but because I got taxed out
of it.
And even if someone sold their house every few years and stayed in the same market,
they would pay less tax under the proposal than they would have without it. In four
years, the market value of my home went up 87% (believe me, my income sure hasn't),
so even if I sold every 5 years, I'd pay less tax in the interim.
As for the person who bought when they were 20 and worked hard all their life to
pay it off, they'd be able to retire in peace without worrying that they were going
to get taxed out of their home (like I am now).
--------
[Mic]
I do understand your point of view, and nothing you say is incorrect. But I also
believe that my facts are correct as well. We are coming at this from two different
directions. Let me give you an example.
ME: The proposal artificially sets
values. with increases of only 1%
YOU: It doesn't change, but limits
the fluctuations.
One could argue we are both telling
the truth. I can certainly admit, that the current system should be changed. But
the predictable solution is not good. Taxing people out of their home is horrendous,
and should not be allowed.
Your rebuttal to my theory on punishing mobility assumes that ONLY local(e) would
affect the assessed value. But would not the fact that you are now being taxed on
the home's true value vs. the 1% increase for 30 years also affect it's assessed
value?
(and I like your quote about discussing our different opinions. Is that yours?)
-------
[Chuck]
(Mic) But I also believe that my
facts are correct as well.
I went back and reread your emails
and here's what I got:
(Mic) "But this proposal, if
fully implemented creates "representation without (equal) taxation." "
That's not a fact, that's a statement.
Where in the proposal does it create any representation?
(Mic) "It punishes mobility."
Again a statement. How it would
punish mobility? Can you give any examples? Would a person who moves every few years
not benefit during the time they owned the house?
(Mic) "20 years of this process
could result in two identical homes, being taxed at dramatically different rates."
Ditto. Where does the proposal change
the rates?
The neighbors on either side of me own similar homes, the tax rate is the same but
there is a considerable difference in the amount of taxes we pay.
(Mic) "Another part of this
is that if someone owned a single house for 20 years and then sold it, they would
receive much more for their home than it had been taxed on."
My county revalues every four years
(true). Say I buy it right after it's revalued. 3 years 10 months later I get notice
my value has doubled (also true -- twice now), so I sell it before I get taxed on
the new value.
Have I not received much more than it was taxed on?
4 years, 20 years -- what's the difference?
Now to the latest email.
(Mic) ME: The proposal artificially
sets values with increases of only 1%.
What specific part of the proposal
says anything about setting the value?
The county assessor sets the value, does that change?
(Mic) One could argue we are both
telling the truth.
What does that have to do with anything?
This isn't a court of law, it's a debate. It's about the pro's and con's of an idea,
not a statement of what happened.
(Mic) I can certainly admit that
the current system should be changed.
At least we agree on something.
And that by the way, is exactly what this proposal is trying to do.
(Mic) But the predictable solution
is not good.
Have you got a better solution?
It's a heck of a lot easier to criticize someone else's idea, than it is to propose
something that might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past politicians
who tell you to mortgage your home to pay inflated taxes.
(Mic) Taxing people out of their
home is horrendous, and should not be allowed.
Bingo! That is exactly what this
proposal is trying to (eliminate).
(Mic) Your rebuttal to my theory
on punishing mobility assumes that ONLY local(e) would affect the assessed value.
Huh? What else affects the assessed
value other than where a house is located?
Are you trying to say that the assessed values in Sequim should be set by the market
conditions in Seattle?
(Mic) But would not the fact that
you are now being taxed on the home's true value ...
First off, I'm not being taxed on
the my home's "true value". A house's "true" value is what someone
will pay. What I AM being taxed on is a - guess - as to what someone - might - pay
on the current market - IF - I were to sell.
Let's say that the assessor guesses that my house would sell for $200K, so I pay
my taxes and sell it the next day but can only get $150K. That is the house's true
value, but it's not what I paid taxes on.
Looking at it another way. Let's say that I lived in my house for 20 years. During
that time the assessor's guesses increased from $100K to $600K.
Then two things happen at the same time, a recession hits, and I get ill and have
to sell my house to pay medical bills. I put it on the market, but because I've been
sick and haven't been able to keep it in shape, the most anyone will (or can), give
me is $300K. That is my house's true value -- yet for years I've been taxed on what
I MIGHT have got if I had sold it in better times.
Now, as the REAL market value of my house was $300K, do you think the assessor will
go back and recalculate my taxes based on what it actually sold for, or do you think
he'll keep the taxes that were based on the guessed market value?
If you said recalculate, I can get you a FANTASTIC deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
(Mic) ... vs. the 1% increase for
30 years also affect it's assessed value?
Yes. And that's exactly the point.
(Mic) (and I like your quote about
discussing our different opinions. Is that yours?)
Thank you and yes. Were it not mine,
I would have given credit.
-------
[Mic]
(Chuck) That's not a fact, that's
a statement. Where in the proposal does it create any representation?
It doesn't create representation,
but it starts to tax people differently. Assuming everything else is identical, the
person who moves more often, will pay more in property taxes. This is because their
homes are being assessed at the actual market value, not an artificial 1% increase.
(Chuck) Again a statement. How it
would punish mobility? Can you give any examples? Would a person who moves every
few years not benefit during the time they owned the house?
Because people that move five times
in 20 years, will pay more in property taxes, than a person who only moves once.
Not the rate, but the dollar amount.
(Chuck) Ditto. Where does the proposal
change the rates?
See above.
(Chuck) Have I not received much
more than it was taxed on?
Yes, you point out that my statement
is true of the CURRENT system, but the proposal would make this much more dramatic.
(Chuck) What specific part of the
proposal says anything about setting the value?
Please correct me if I am wrong,
but doesn't the proposal limit value increases to 1% per year?
(Chuck) The county assessor sets
the value, does that change?
(Mic) No, other than you have changed
his/her method of setting the value.
(Mic) One could argue we are both
telling the truth.
(Chuck) What does that have to do
with anything? This isn't a court of law, it's a debate. It's about the pro's and
con's of an idea, not a statement of what happened.
I agree, but what you see as a "pro",
I see as a "con". That's why I say that we are looking at this differently,
yet both being honest and true to our own beliefs.
(Chuck) Have you got a better solution?
The current system while not good,
IS BETTER than what is being proposed. And no, I do not offer an alternative.
(Chuck) It's a heck of a lot easier
to criticize someone else's idea, than it is to propose something that might have
a snowball's chance in hell of getting past politicians who tell you to mortgage
your home to pay inflated taxes.
I agree, and my only retort is what
I said above. This proposal will break the system worse than it is today.
-------
Although not part of this email exchange, I MUST
interject a fact here: our proposal is REVENUE NEUTRAL. Initiative 747 capped levy
increases at 1%, therefore, the amount the taxing district receives from property
tax revenue is not affected. The district receives only the amount it received in
the previous year, plus 1% (in addition to new construction and sales). One might
argue the effects of inflation, however, that situation remains whether or not our
proposal becomes law. Now back to the email exchange:
-------
(Chuck) Huh? What else affects the
assessed value other than where a house is located?
Wouldn't reassessing a home when
it sells, affect it's assessed value more than a 1% annual increase?
(Mic) ... vs. the 1% increase for 30 years also affect it's assessed value?
(Chuck) Yes. And that's exactly
the point.
And this is where we do see things
differently. I agree with everything above. The difference is that I believe you
see this change as making the system better, and I see it as making it worse.
-------
predictabletax@earthlink.net commented:
What an intelligent discussion of the human side of this issue!!!!! Bravo to you
both. I would like to "save" this dialog for possible future use (I know
it will come in handy somewhere!)...in fact, I think it should be posted on our website
(with or without names, if I have your permission)....
It all comes down to the point I was trying to make at the Finance Committee hearing
(posted on our website). What is fair? I'm for the guy who worked hard and through
no fault of his own, can no longer afford to keep his home because of rising taxes.
The new guy has a CHOICE, the longer-term resident does not......
(Mic replied) I've learned much
from Chuck, he is quite articulate.
Also, feel free to use my statements as you see fit.
(Chuck replied) ...in fact, I think it should be posted on our website
(with our without names, if I have your permission)....
I have no problems with that. And you have permission to use "Chuck".
(Back to the dialogue):
--------
[Chuck]
(Mic) Assuming everything else is
identical, the person who moves more often, will pay more in property taxes. This
is because their homes are being assessed at the actual market value, not an artificial
1% increase.
(Mic) Because people that move five times in 20 years, will pay more in property
taxes, than a person who only moves once. Not the rate, but the dollar amount.
Ahhhh, I think I see what you're
getting at now, but I'm not positive, so please correct me if my interpretation below
is wrong.
--------
If a person who moves often buys
a home next to a person whose market value has been capped at a 1% increase for several
years, then the new person will be paying more because their taxes will be based
on what they paid, whereas the neighbor is paying less because their market value
has been kept lower because of the 1% increase.
Correct?
---------
I'm going to answer that as if you
are vigorously nodding yes.
And the answer is yes AND no.
The assumption here is that under the current system everyone is paying the same
amount already. But that simply isn't the case. As I pointed out earlier, the neighbors
on either side of me pay more because their houses are valued higher than mine, and
I pay more than the guy across the street because mine is valued higher than his.
So yes, initially, the nomad is going to pay more taxes than the capped one. But
that's true even without the cap simply because it will take a while before the new
market value he set, changes everyone's market value, and even without the cap, he'll
still forever be paying more because the market value of his house is higher than
mine and will stay that way even through successive market changes.
The other side of the coin is that the nomad also has the income to pay the higher
taxes simply because he has the income to buy the higher valued house. But now the
neighbor, whose income hasn't changed, has to pay more in taxes because the new market
value says his house is worth more. He is now paying a higher percentage of his income
in taxes compared to the nomad. Next year, when someone with an income higher than
the nomad, buys the house next to him, the nomad is going to find that a higher percentage
of his income will have to go to pay taxes.
The no side of this answer comes from the fact that no matter how many times the
nomads move throughout their lives, eventually they will settle in one home, if only
because they've retired. They would now benefit from the cap because rising market
values won't be taking an ever increasingly higher percentage of their fixed income.
Without the cap, this nomad, whose income kept pace with the increased taxes before,
is going to find that more and more of his now limited income is going out to pay
taxes.
Because market value taxation has no relationship to what a person earns, but instead
is based on what his neighbor earns, this now retired nomad started out paying 10%
of his income in taxes. Then after several years of higher earning people buying
houses around him, he's now paying 50% of his income.
As I understand it, what the cap does is take the neighbor's income out of the picture.
It keeps the relationship between income and taxes on an even keel. And even a nomad
benefits from that.
(I think the above answered some of the things that followed your first statement,
so I'm going to skip over them. If it didn't, please bring them up in your follow-up.)
(Mic) ME: The proposal artificially
sets values with increases of only 1%.
(Chuck) What specific part of the
proposal says anything about setting the value?
(Mic) Please correct me if I am
wrong, but doesn't the proposal limit value increases to 1% per year?
That is correct -- the point being
that it doesn't set the value, it limits the increases.
(Chuck) The county assessor sets the value, does that change?
(Mic) No, other than you have changed
his/her method of setting the value.
Not really. It doesn't change the
method. The assessor still sets values the same way. What changes is how much those
values can increase after you've bought the house.
(Chuck) Huh? What else affects the assessed value other than where a house is located?
(Mic) Wouldn't reassessing a home
when it sells, affect it's assessed value more than a 1% annual increase?
I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure
what you're getting at there, so my answer is a stab in the dark.
The obvious answer to that question is yes -- but I don't think that's what you're
asking.
The cap on a house only affects it's current owner. When it's sold, the sale price
becomes the market value for the new owner and it's what they are taxed on. The cap
now limits this new market value to 1% increases each year -- unless the bottom falls
out of the market, in which case the market value would be the lower value (which
would then be subject to the cap).
As I said above, what the proposal is attempting to do, is to keep the relationship
between what you paid for the house and the annual tax burden on an even basis. It
limits the effects of what a tight market, with rapidly increasing property values,
has on that relationship.
For instance, you pay $100K for a house and the taxes you pay are appropriate for
someone with the income to buy at that price. But if rapidly increasing property
values kicks the value up to $300K, you are now paying taxes that are appropriate
for someone at that income level, but wholly inappropriate for someone who could
only afford a $100K house.
To put it another way, it's the same as if you're earning $20,000 a year, but have
to pay taxes based on your boss' $50,000 per year salary.
--------
[Mic]
(Chuck) … has been kept lower because
of the 1% increase. Correct?
Yes, you are correct
(Mic) Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the proposal limit value increases
to 1% per year?
(Chuck) That is correct -- the point
being that it doesn't set the value, it limits the increases.
That's like saying cigarette tax
doesn't affect their cost, only that you pay more in taxes.
(Chuck) Not really. It doesn't change
the method. The assessor still sets values the same way. What changes is how much
those values can increase after you've bought the house.
Now your spinning the answer to
your advantage. If the assessor is limited to only a 1% increase in valuation, when
he was not limited previously. That means the method has changed.
(Chuck) To put it another way, it's
the same as if you're earning $20,000 a year, but have to pay taxes based on your
boss' $50,000 per year salary.
Chuck, I respect your opinion here.
And I agree that most of what you say is correct. Again, where we disagree is on
whether or not a house should be taxed on it's current value, or the purchased value.
-------
[Mic]
The Peninsula daily news has a front page article about this issue, and I believe
explains the differences in our points of view quite clearly.
www.peninsuladailynews.com
I'm not sure if the whole story is online or not.
---------
[Chuck]
Well Mic, it seems as if you've made up your mind that you are not going to like
it no matter what anyone says.
So I'm going to follow that old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you
can't make him drink" and leave you on the edge of the desert.
I'm going to leave you with this though, if you own a house, you will eventually
understand.
Fair winds and following seas mate.
P.S. I checked out the link you sent, but was unable to find anything concerning
our discussion, nor any links to archives or opinion columns.
--------
[Mic]
Yeah, the PDN website is quite limited. If you desire to give me a mailing address,
I would be happy to mail you the article.
Also Chuck, you should know, I am 42 and just built a house in Sequim. the proposal
would benefit me tremendously, as I have no plans to ever move again.
But just because I benefit, does not make it a good plan.
-------
[Chuck]
(Mic) If you desire to give me a
mailing address I would be happy to mail you the article.
Thanks, but I'll pass.
______
[G. Whiz]
I read part of the pro-con dialogue on property tax limitations and stability. At
issue are things like fairness, mobility, stability, and necessity which, of course,
have to be weighed and viewed with objectivity. The validity of taxes is limited
by the necessity of required government.
The importance of stability, safety, and the security of our homes is underscored
right in the fourth amendment to our national Constitution which addresses the concerns
of being secure in our homes against unreasonable seizures. Taxes that are influenced
by the invasion of affluence become unreasonable seizures. That's what is unfair.
It's predatory. If affluent invaders want to pay inflated prices for property, they
should shoulder the inflated differences in the taxes they incur. It isn't fair for
others who haven't done anything to raise the cost of government. They haven't increased
the need for fire, police, schools, or any other governmental necessity. But developers
and newcomers do.
The issue that was raised of mobility is interesting. Should it be optional or forced?
Mobility sounds like freedom, but it sure isn't when one is forced out by predatory
taxes. (One) writer claimed that higher taxes to people who pay more for their property
punishes mobility. Does it? Or does the obscene inflationary prices they choose to
pay do it? You say "choose" and I say yes because that's what dictates
market price.
It was noted that there are three times when people usually move, sell, and buy:
they are marriage, increased family size (children), and retirement. But the most
frequent reason was left out and that is "upward income mobility." These
all are issues of free choice. They are not and ought not to be forced. Who in our
culture would want to force people to move, sell, and buy?
How sincere and candid is this argument for mobility? Is it out of concern for Mr.
Average Joe Homeowner and Family Man? Or is it just a concern about real estate market
profits?
High in the heritage of our American beliefs are freedom and responsibility. A basic
principle is that we work for what we want. and we get and protect what we work for
which translates into "we get and do what we can afford and deserve to keep
it." We go to great lengths to protect against loss and theft. We even dig into
our pockets to pay insurance premiums for it. And that's what we pay taxes for, too.
The problem is that escalations of those costs caused by other people's actions isn't
fair. Even insurance premiums are uneven depending on the relative risks of the insureds.
We consider that to be fair. Why should property taxes be different?