View Single Post
Old 09-27-2018, 12:52 PM   #55
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,120
Thanks: 577
Thanked 250 Times in 182 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
AC2717...

So it is your opinion that property should be taxed at a flat rate regardless of value?

Your argument that "That's how Insurance Co's do it" is silly. They are only insuring the building and its contents. They are not insuring the land those buildings are on. A property can be worth $600K because of its location, but the cost to rebuild the home on that property might only be $200K.

Property values are market driven... the more desirable the property.. the more people are willing to pay for it. Do you want to live on Beacon Hill? Or do you want to live Dorchester? If you have the $$$ to purchase the property, you have $$$ to pay the taxes on it. If people don't like the taxes, then sell it, make a tidy profit (this America and we are a "for Profit" country) and go buy elsewhere with a lower property tax burden. If enough people did that, the market prices of property on the Lake should fall. The reality is, a wealthier person will scarf up the property and the cycle continues.

And lets not forget... owning a 2nd home is a luxury. Any and all taxes paid on something like that amount to a Luxury Tax.

If you don't like the way the town/state is spending your tax money... show up to the meetings and let your voice be heard. You cannot vote, but your opinion will certainly be heard and noted.


Woodsy
I'm not using that as a reason, I am using it as an example. My argument is an acre in the town is an acre in the town. I am removing Market value from the equation. If I own a acre in the town and you own an acre in the same town, why should our taxes be anything different. Fully agree when purchasing desirability is driving costs.
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote