In a recent editorial published by Lee Chowaniec, he supported assessing properties based on 100% market value based on recorded home sales, a designed model considering numerous variables and house type comparables. He thought the Lancaster’s Town Assessor’s process fair asked for opinions on what other process could be fairer. The following is my opinion.
More...
So are you saying if i make 100K a year, I'll pay the same weather i buy a 100K house or a 300K house?
Why don't we just consolidate towns services? instead of having 60+ towns and villages all with there own equipment, there own operators, there own mechanics and there own politicians skim them down!
The editorial by Jack Bailman doesn't make any sense!
I believe it would be safe to assume that Jack Beilman is a Liberal.
He is????? Not the Jack Beilman I know! He was one of the first tax-revolt champions here in the last 15 years.Originally Posted by Surfing USA
Not legal in this state. I've always thought home values should only be adjusted once a homeowner sells, and then the new assessment attached -- must easier than trying to make educated guesses about values. But that's illegal in NY too.
From reading his article, it seems as though he's had his fair share of Obama's Kool-Aid.
My home was built with a $16,000 loan and from what my dad always said he used the last couple thousand to pay off some of the loan. 60 years later we still own it so I should be assessed at that price . wont work
this new Idea is also good the house is paid for and I have been forced to take a lower income job now. so this big house should have almost no property taxes. wont work
a 50,000 house and a 500,000 house require the same town services and chances are they will have the same amount of kids in school so why not pay the same tax. a flat rate. so much per unit whether its a single double or apartments this one I like
One good thing about growing old is your secrets are safe with your friends they can't remember them either
As someone who throughly enjoys the Obama Kool Aid, I can tell you that we don't all think that the RE tax based on income is a good idea.
But, for what it's worth, Jack Bielman is, literally, a rocket scientist.
Dumbest idea ever.
The good news: I just got a raise at work.
The bad news: My taxes on my house just went up.
I'm still waiting for the police to be twice as effective, since I pay twice as much for them as the average homeowner in Lancaster does. My kids should also get twice the amount of education in school.
As dumb as that sounds, it makes more sense than a income based property tax.
You may not want to go down that road. Because, being that I have no kids in the school system, I would expect a HUGE decrease in taxes.
Yeah, lets see if we can tax the snot out of anybody that is producing something here in NY.... I think they already use that strategy,, and it is still not working.
Why don't we get rid of the mortgage tax and the necessity of having two attorneys for real estate transactions while we are at it.
NYUSSR... every day....everyway!
Value and Market
Buyer demand and local economic conditions establish value...
Any Realtor will tell you, "We deliver the market, we don't control the market."
If you base property taxes not on the value of the property but on one's income then it would be an income tax and not a property tax. So is this advocating abolishing property taxes and giving all the taxing entities the authority to impose their own income tax?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I wouldn't mind that. I could work my butt off for a fews years buy a house and then go work under the table for a friend and only have to worry about sales tax!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote