Fair Tax Movement

Hey Bob-- Awesome to see you again!!!!!!! Have you heard from Llana? you both are very missed! Up her in New York (the tax state) we get both income and sales tax!! Yup the good old double dip! As a matter of fact they just voted (one week AFTER ELECTION DAY) to raise both our sales tax and property tax !!!! HUURRRAYYY Now we get to pay more for less! then to top it off they also implimented all kinds of user fees- ($5 more to drive a car, $6 more to launch your boat, $4 more to golf) It is getting to the point that honest working folk- just can't make ends meet!

Hi Stefan, no I haven't seen Llana or BE in a long time. Llana lived in an RV I think so she could be living anywhere. Of course on this board you CAN live anywhere and it don't matter. From what I understand, with this new tax deal there wont be any property tax, income tax or anything but sales tax. That's a good point though about fees. You don't have to call it a tax for it to BE a tax.

Hi Hermatite. They don't have any taxes at all in New Hampshire? As far as voting and taxes, and I mean this with all due respect. Voting comes with citizenship, be it born into or applied for and granted. Taxes come with living in and enjoying the benefits of the country. I hope you like it hear. Reminds me of a Lyle Lovett song "Your not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.

OK I'm back to the boards, I'm having fun playing with the GoogleEarth thingy.

I'd like to know how a single sales tax is gonna satisfy local government (schools), state government, federal government.

Also, a sales tax is very regressive. Tinkering required here.

If corporations had to pay their fair share, instead of screwin' us to death, this subject might not even come up. But guess who rules the world, and guess who gets to bend over.

Time for another Tea Party.

Rich

Of course, everyone who visits that site will have their phone tapped by the FBI!

Ron

hermatite - Interesting column in the Washington Post this week about NH view tax:

By David A. Fahrenthold
The Washington Post

PLAINFIELD, N.H. - The view from Brad Wilder's hillside house is a 270-degree panorama of New England high country: the rugged peak of Mount Ascutney, the reddening leaves and white-painted houses of the Connecticut River valley and -- on some lucky fall days -- migratory geese cruising by at eye level.

His vista is stunning. But you can't say it's priceless.

Wilder's view has actually been valued right down to the dollar: According to the town of Plainfield, it is worth $237,265. In 2003, town officials deemed it a bonus feature of his home, like a third bathroom or marble countertops, and ordered him to pay about $4,700 in property taxes for it.

Which left Wilder with a lot of questions.

Chief among them: How do you value a view?

That is the strange conundrum that is captivating New Hampshire at the moment, as town officials have embarked on an controversial quest to quantify -- and then tax -- the beauty of their residents' vistas.

Now, landowners with high-value views are livid about their tax bills, and they have started pressing officials to explain just how, exactly, they managed to distill the ineffable majesty of nature into dollar values.

Turns out, it is not a totally exact science.

"It's more of an 'I know it when I see it' kind of thing," said Thomas Holmes, the assessor for the town of Conway, N.H.

Not unique to N.H.

The problem in New Hampshire is not simply that "view factors" are being used in property appraisal -- that is by no means unique to the Granite State. In most places, experts say, if a property's view is good enough to make a buyer pay something extra for it, an assessor will try to estimate that something extra and include it in the property's assessed value.

In the Washington area, for instance, an Annapolis home with a view of the Severn River might be worth 15 percent more than a similar house with a view of a cul-de-sac.

But New Hampshire is different, because the state's views have become so sky-high valuable, and so fast. Statewide, one assessor said the maximum value added because of a view has jumped from a maximum of around $20,000 about 10 years ago to $200,000 or more now.

One example among many: In Winchester, N.H., Bennet Nicholson's view of the Connecticut River valley helped bump his property value up from about $98,000 in 2002 to about $273,000 in 2003 -- and more than doubled his property taxes.

"There's no way that I could keep on paying $10,000 a year in taxes," he said. Nicholson left the house where he had planned to spend the rest of his life and moved to Canada's Prince Edward Island.

The change has been blamed in part on New Hampshire's lack of a sales tax or personal income tax, which means that property taxes bear much of the revenue burden. In recent years, the state has been pushing towns to keep their property assessments up to date so that none of this crucial revenue is missed.

At the same time, the state's real estate market was being knocked out of whack by an influx of outsiders seeking vacation, weekend or permanent homes -- often with a view.

"They come up from down below," said Guy Petell, the state's chief of property appraisals. He meant places such as Boston, Connecticut and New York, with more money but smaller hills. "They want to be able to look around the world."

Learning from the 'View Manual'

So here, property assessors say, was their assignment: Try to judge each of the state's properties, and especially each vista, through the eyes of the view-hungry buyers who were driving the market. There were no state guidelines to help them compare views.

"I hate saying that it's subjective," said Gary J. Roberge, chief executive officer of the company that valued Wilder's view. "But it is."

There are, in some cases, rules of thumb that appraisers can turn to for help. For instance, a view of a "name mountain," such as Mount Washington or others in the famed Presidential Range, is usually worth more than a view of a less-famous peak. Also, 90 degrees of view is better than 45, and a river and hills are usually worth more than hills alone.

But that is about as hard and fast as the business of valuing views seems to get.

In an interview at his offices in Chichester, N.H., Roberge went through pages from a "View Manual," showing a range of vistas rated middling to spectacular.

There was a "300" rated property, whose view had a barn up close and a mountain in the distance. "You've got a little bit of the horizon," Roberge said. That little bit, in this case, was enough view to triple the land's value -- a difference of $96,000 or more for an average property in a place such as Plainfield, he said.

Then Roberge got to a "500" view, with a lot more horizon and distance. "It just goes on forever," Roberge said. It would add $192,000 to the same property.

He looked at a "600" view, which was a panorama of mountains and receding hills such as Wilder's in Plainfield. "If you were standing up there looking at it, it would blow you away," Roberge said. For that quality, Roberge said, land such as this would be worth six times its original value, for an increase of $240,000 just because of the view.

To which some landowners say: That's all there is to it?

"The formula sucks pond water," said John Frado, 60, whose property in Winchester jumped in value by $70,000 because of another assessing company's opinion of its overlook.

Forcing residents out

When Wilder contested his valuation in court, a local judge came to a similar, though more decorously worded, conclusion: The appraisal was "not supported by evidence of anything other than the subjective judgment of the appraising company." He ordered it reduced, though the case has been appealed. ( one of several 'thousand")

After protests across the state, state lawmakers are now considering ways to ensure that, in the future, assessors give more evidence to support the values they place on views.

"What do you see?" asked state Rep. Betsey L. Patten (R). "I want you to explain."

For now, though, what residents call the "view tax" still has many longtime residents worrying that the mountain on the distance will soon force them off the land beneath their feet. When farmer John Lynch, 65, found that his view had been valued at about $65,000, he confronted someone from the assessing company: "How do you think we're going to hang on here?"

Lynch, who lives in the town of Hill, N.H., said that one of the odd parts about this controversy is that, with his attention always on the land, he rarely spends time gazing out at his valuable view.

"You very seldom look," Lynch said. "Well, to see the weather or the sunset . . . ." Suddenly, he was troubled by the thought of a tax on sunsets.

"Oh," he said, "don't tell them about that."

I wish Llana was around,

Well, Bob, your wish is my command! Sheesh, I haven't been here since the first part of Sept. and the first post I hone in on is a thread about taxes! My "I hate government, taxes, politicians, etc." antenna must be finely tuned today.

Fact is that the income tax law will/can NEVER be repealed, so any fair tax/sales tax the crooks in DC cook up with NOT ease taxes. It will just be an added tax. They will make it sound real sweet, get on TV and tell us what a great deal it is and the majority of people will scream YES YES YES!!! But there will be fine print that few people ever read or find out about until it's too late.

They can never repeal the income tax because, contrary to popular belief that these taxes pay for government services, i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, etc, they do not. What is left over after the government waste on this thing or that, goes to the international bankers to pay the interest on the national debt, which can never be paid.

The only way we will ever rid ourselves of income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and other assorted taxes we pay is to be rid of the international bankers and have an honest monetary system. That will never happen.

In 1933, when FDR gave our monetary system over to the international bankers, we (people) and all of our property were made collateral on whatever national debt the corporate United States incurred. You signed that social security card, which is a CONTRACT with the government. You signed that 1040 or other IRS form, also a contract with the government. You signed that W4/W2 and all those other W forms the IRS presents you with. You signed the contract giving your consent, therefore you are obligated to uphold your end of the contact. You work for the corporation, therefore, you have to pay income taxes, because YOU signed the contract and YOU are collateral on that debt.

And, THAT, my friends is the ugly truth.

And, how do ya' like that! I didn't get on a big time rant! Believe me, though, I had to seriously restrain myself.

view tax HAH! We overlook a Walmart...we should get money BACK!

view tax HAH! We overlook a Walmart...we should get money BACK!

Herm...your problem is a simple one, Just say no to Walmart...refuse to shop there...we won't go in any of these stores...I try to avoid all chain stores in favor of Mom and Pop stores, same thing with restaurants and it is very hard to avoid all but you can do your part

Back to the subject of taxes...It is very hard to have a fair taxation system (it is very subjective), but we must try...I do believe the right thing is to tax more heavily those that have been provided incredible wealth and privilege by the good people of this country. We should never have things like an aristocracy in this country, tax the dead heavily ( i.e., exempt the first million or two and tax the rest), they wont feel it at all and the general public can benefit. Why does the government tax bank accounts...unlike Mom and Dad, they dont want you to save your pennies. Taxes are a necessary evil if you want good schools, nice clean towns, and a safe and non-hostile environment. It is up to us as citizens to weed out waste and con artists in government...alas we usually do not
csroc

csroc

Csroc, are you taxing the income or are you taxing the monies that are already there. For example, I win say 400 million in the lotto and after tax I have 200 million left. I quit my job and invest in tax free governmet bonds, thus having no taxable income. Will my money still be taxed under your system? Just trying to figure out what you are saying.

thanks for the help,

Robert