Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, to concede your latent point, you are helping in your way to subsidize those in lower-valued housing.
Shucks, in my neighborhood, where I appealed and had my valuation decreased 8% vs. similarly overvalued properties, my neighbors are subsidizing me. At least they chose to.
Inquiring minds ask daily.
Since you're not reassessed on stock until you sell and take your profit, why should you pay taxes on the paper profit in your home?
Or, perhaps a taste of Holly Springs' CBC's mighty fine Carolina Pale Ale. Draft, of course.
Don't want to hear this "Coors (too) Lite" or "PBR" stuff.
Since you're not reassessed on stock until you sell and take your profit, why should you pay taxes on the paper profit in your home?
Very wrong in my opinion.
I agree, to some extent.
Perhaps all services should be paid through user fees, as that would be most fair.
Tuition for public schools.
User fees to enter the highway.
Impact fees for those who request a service, so the service is capitalized in advance. Mass transit, parks, roads, schools, community hospitals, prisons... All future users should register, and pay the tab before being allowed to access the service, or before the service is established. (Prisons...)
Or not.
The whole notion of taxation is completely subjective in nature, depending on whose ox is being gored, i.e., whether people think they are paying or getting more of a free ride than others. AKA, "vote-buying."
The whole notion of politics is akin to what football players call a "Counter Play." Misdirection. Make people think something else is going on, so they will vote for the All-Star Quarterback who is peeing on their leg and telling them it is raining. With a good fake, the public can't follow the ball, and falls for the guy who shows them what they want to see, i.e., tells them what they want to hear.
A tangential comparison to taxation difficulties is the genius of the Framers of the Constitution in creating the bi-cameral legislature. Two houses, one in which representatives are apportioned via a per capita ratio, and one with the same number of senators per each state.
Two different approaches to equal representation.
Sometimes taxes work comparably.
Sometimes users pay in proportion to their use.
Sometimes folks who do not directly access the service pay.
It could be "fair," if it were not for B. Franklin's (paraphrased) concern, "When the people discover they can vote themselves funds from the treasury, it will signal the end of the Republic."
He would pat himself on the back today for his precognition, if he could see the evolution of the Republic.
Perhaps all services should be paid through user fees, as that would be most fair.
Tuition for public schools.
User fees to enter the highway.
Impact fees for those who request a service, so the service is capitalized in advance. Mass transit, parks, roads, schools, community hospitals, prisons... All future users should register, and pay the tab before being allowed to access the service, or before the service is established. (Prisons...)
Or not.
The whole notion of taxation is completely subjective in nature, depending on whose ox is being gored, i.e., whether people think they are paying or getting more of a free ride than others. AKA, "vote-buying."
The whole notion of politics is akin to what football players call a "Counter Play." Misdirection. Make people think something else is going on, so they will vote for the All-Star Quarterback who is peeing on their leg and telling them it is raining. With a good fake, the public can't follow the ball, and falls for the guy who shows them what they want to see, i.e., tells them what they want to hear.
A tangential comparison to taxation difficulties is the genius of the Framers of the Constitution in creating the bi-cameral legislature. Two houses, one in which representatives are apportioned via a per capita ratio, and one with the same number of senators per each state.
Two different approaches to equal representation.
Sometimes taxes work comparably.
Sometimes users pay in proportion to their use.
Sometimes folks who do not directly access the service pay.
It could be "fair," if it were not for B. Franklin's (paraphrased) concern, "When the people discover they can vote themselves funds from the treasury, it will signal the end of the Republic."
He would pat himself on the back today for his precognition, if he could see the evolution of the Republic.
I know we're talking about Wake County, but here in Durham County, I appealed the assessment, too, and prevailed (meaning they accepted the evidence I presented and validated, for the most part, my assertions regarding a lower valuation after the first appeal... I did not choose to go any further). However, even though our valuation was definitely more than before, since the percentages apparently changed here Durham, combined with my prevailing appeal, I am actually paying a bit less than I did before. Just a bit, but not bad at all. I was already bracing for hit, too. Nothing's official yet, I'm just basing the amount based on current percentages. They could change, I dunno. But so far, the best news I've received this year (the performance of the stock market and my 401k, on the other hand, is sending me to an early grave).
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Raleigh_Guy
I second that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
OKAY, you two pixies...
Root beer or Cheerwine?
Or, perhaps a taste of Holly Springs' CBC's mighty fine Carolina Pale Ale. Draft, of course.
Don't want to hear this "Coors (too) Lite" or "PBR" stuff.
Coors Lite? PBR? Sacrilege, buddy! I go for the dark stuff. Chocolate Porter or Guinness. Yum! Haven't yet pleasured a taste of Carolina Pale Ale, yet. On the other end of the scale, that Cheerwine is pretty good stuff.
We closed on our home in Apex this past Friday (June 27) and received our tax bill, in our names, on Wednesday. Wow that was fast!
Looks like our tax went up $106.25 (3.6%) over what the previous owners paid last year. The house is less than three years old (as opposed to 8 years) so maybe that is why the increase wasn't as big as many others.
We closed on our home in Apex this past Friday (June 27) and received our tax bill, in our names, on Wednesday. Wow that was fast!
Looks like our tax went up $106.25 (3.6%) over what the previous owners paid last year. The house is less than three years old (as opposed to 8 years) so maybe that is why the increase wasn't as big as many others.
You are exactly right. Consider the fact that the reassessment occurs every EIGHT YEARS. Imagine the appreciation in 8 years. Which again leads me to my opinion that doing this re assesment every 8 years is just ridiculous!
The fair way would be to reassess only when a home is sold. That way, folks don't get taxed on paper profits.
Then, revenue neutrality could go away, and tax rates could change as appropriate.
This would really help those on fixed incomes who don't want to sell their homes to cash out paper gains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok...just being silly!!! 
On the other end of the scale, that Cheerwine is pretty good stuff. 
