On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:47:55 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

"DSK" wrote
Do you mean that the tax laws have changed so as to reflect property
usage?

Yes, the referendum passed this fall and the legislature is working on
implementation. In a state that usually shows unusual common sense, the
change failed the first time around. It took a massive education effort
to get enough people to realize that the coastline was effectively going
to become part of Massachusetts and New Jersey if it didn't pass.

It used to be that, every time a waterfront business watched a new house
going up on a piece of vacant shoreline, they knew that their property
taxes would shortly follow. This still won't prevent waterfront users
from being priced out of obtaining property but it will help keep them
from being forced off of what they have now.

One nice thing about California is that property taxes are based on what
you bought the property for, plus ~4% per year appreciation. This is how
little old ladies can afford to keep their multi-million dollar homes.

There's no way to stop rising real estate values, but limiting property
tax and therefore fixed costs is how the little guy can stay in the
game, instead of selling out to the super-rich and the corporations.

New England is a wonderful place, but limits its own economic growth by
taxation -- not just high taxes, but stupid taxes. I read
recently that Maine has the highest overall taxes in the US.

Matt O.

Hey Matt ,,, did you hear that OJ Simpson is moving to Maine; yup, he wants
to live in a state with only one DNA.

Hey Matt,,, what's the nicest thing you can say to your neighbor up in
Maine? Nice Tooth.

Hey Matt,,,, last week I was up around Bangor looking for a boat. I'm
driving down this country road and I see a sign that says "Welcome to
Bucktooth, why across the road when ya can go across the hall".



==============================================


"Matt O'Toole" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:47:55 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

"DSK" wrote
Do you mean that the tax laws have changed so as to reflect property
usage?

Yes, the referendum passed this fall and the legislature is working on
implementation. In a state that usually shows unusual common sense, the
change failed the first time around. It took a massive education effort
to get enough people to realize that the coastline was effectively going
to become part of Massachusetts and New Jersey if it didn't pass.

It used to be that, every time a waterfront business watched a new house
going up on a piece of vacant shoreline, they knew that their property
taxes would shortly follow. This still won't prevent waterfront users
from being priced out of obtaining property but it will help keep them
from being forced off of what they have now.

One nice thing about California is that property taxes are based on what
you bought the property for, plus ~4% per year appreciation. This is how
little old ladies can afford to keep their multi-million dollar homes.

There's no way to stop rising real estate values, but limiting property
tax and therefore fixed costs is how the little guy can stay in the
game, instead of selling out to the super-rich and the corporations.

New England is a wonderful place, but limits its own economic growth by
taxation -- not just high taxes, but stupid taxes. I read
recently that Maine has the highest overall taxes in the US.

Matt O.

It used to be that, every time a waterfront business watched a new house
going up on a piece of vacant shoreline, they knew that their property
taxes would shortly follow.

It's not just waterfront, it's everywhere.



Matt O'Toole wrote:
One nice thing about California is that property taxes are based on what
you bought the property for, plus ~4% per year appreciation.

That's nice, only 4% jump in taxes every year?

Do the math, your taxes can double in less than 20 years.

North Carolina is not a particularly high-tax state,
although they do impose property tax on cars, boats,
trailers, etc; and our county (run by developers for
developers) has undertaken a huge debt load. The taxes on
our modest suburban house have more than doubled in the past
twelve years.


There's no way to stop rising real estate values,

No, the market takes care of that.

... but limiting property
tax and therefore fixed costs is how the little guy can stay in the
game, instead of selling out to the super-rich and the corporations.

This is also taken care of by the market, in the long run.
However, the long run doesn't do any good whatever for
people trying to live decently and perhaps raise families.

IMHO this is one reason why so many communities are closing
offa anchorages too, after going to great lengths to wring
big bucks from their suckers... err I mean citizens, they
don't want anybody to hang around breathing their air unless
they can be squeezed too.

Regards
Doug King

DSK wrote in news:MkKCf.1437$fZ2.925
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

The taxes on
our modest suburban house have more than doubled in the past
twelve years.


I always find it amusing that people who will live on a sailboat, which
less face it is just an RV with no wheels once you look past the nostalgia
factor, seem to have these huge tax lien houses, but would NEVER consider
living in my comfortable mobile home, which is nicer and has more room than
a Hatteras 70 because it doesn't have two engine rooms.

When some yuppie asks me what yacht I have, I tell 'em an Oakwood 70 at
Evanston Marina...(c; "Oh, a 70! Very nice..." Many 70' yachts at City
Marina never leave their docks, either.

Just like a fine old boat that depreciates like mad, my Oakwood 70 paid
$128 to the county last year....but $89 of that was for garbage pickup so
the taxes on my house were quite cheap...and dropping. I don't give a damn
what the millage rate is. Any millage rate times 0 is still 0...(c;

"Larry" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in news:MkKCf.1437$fZ2.925
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

The taxes on
our modest suburban house have more than doubled in the past
twelve years.


I always find it amusing that people who will live on a sailboat, which
less face it is just an RV with no wheels once you look past the nostalgia
factor, seem to have these huge tax lien houses, but would NEVER consider
living in my comfortable mobile home, which is nicer and has more room
than
a Hatteras 70 because it doesn't have two engine rooms.

When some yuppie asks me what yacht I have, I tell 'em an Oakwood 70 at
Evanston Marina...(c; "Oh, a 70! Very nice..." Many 70' yachts at City
Marina never leave their docks, either.

Just like a fine old boat that depreciates like mad, my Oakwood 70 paid
$128 to the county last year....but $89 of that was for garbage pickup so
the taxes on my house were quite cheap...and dropping. I don't give a
damn
what the millage rate is. Any millage rate times 0 is still 0...(c;


Ah - but perhaps the land it's on has some of these duplication
(exponential?) problems about tax bases?

L8R

Skip, homeless (well, sold them, not aboard yet)

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
http://tinyurl.com/384p2 The vessel as Tehamana, as we bought her

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

The taxes on
our modest suburban house have more than doubled in the past
twelve years.


"Larry" wrote
I always find it amusing that people who will live on a sailboat, which
less face it is just an RV with no wheels once you look past the nostalgia
factor, seem to have these huge tax lien houses, but would NEVER consider
living in my comfortable mobile home, which is nicer and has more room
than
a Hatteras 70 because it doesn't have two engine rooms.

Apparently, for many the "romance" of living on a boat makes
up for the inconveniences. OTOH I have lived in mobile
homes, and perhaps a newer one would not be so bad, but the
ones I lived in were NOT comfortable. Drafty at best. But at
least mobile homes don't have a holding tank to pump out.

Another thing to bear in mind is that fewer & fewer
communities even allow mobile homes. Sooner or later they'll
decide that your lot "should" have a McMansion on it, and
tax accordingly.


Skip Gundlach wrote:
Ah - but perhaps the land it's on has some of these duplication
(exponential?) problems about tax bases?


I dunno, there used to be a lot of back-country crossroads
around Charleston, haven't driven around down there in a
while. There used to be places people had built houses... or
stashed mobile homes... that weren't even officially
considered "land" much less taxed.

DSK

DSK wrote in news:I4NCf.29095$C%3.15294
@bignews2.bellsouth.net:

Another thing to bear in mind is that fewer & fewer
communities even allow mobile homes. Sooner or later they'll
decide that your lot "should" have a McMansion on it, and
tax accordingly.



Yes, this is not caused by any concern for the community, but concern for
the TAXES COLLECTED. Taxes on a MH go down every year and even our best
tax bureaucrats haven't figured out how to juggle the books to make them
increase.....so the "best course" for this pig bureaucracy is to have them
banned, for the good of the community, of course.

There's been a dangerous backlash from all this here. Some politicians
have, to their surprise, found out that people living the "good life"
without the ever-increasing tax load VOTE and a couple of them got their
fingers (and other appendages) burned the last few times around. The
"course" has changed again, at least for the short term, as they try to
figure out how to go through the back door....(c;

It's best not to mention "banning mobile homes" in Council Chambers, at the
moment.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:59:45 -0500, Larry wrote:

my comfortable mobile home, which is nicer and has more room than
a Hatteras 70 because it doesn't have two engine rooms.

And will be strewn all over I-95 the next time a big hurricane hits
Charleston.

There's no way to stop rising real estate values

i know it seems like a small thing, but there is a difference between
rising real estate "values" and rising real estate "prices". an old
ladies house was built as shelter for the people that live in it, it's
value is relatively unchanged. in understanding the value of a thing,
price is one of it's least interesting qualities. like warren buffett
said ... "price is what you pay. value is what you get".