The Determination of Property Values

[Schifference]

I can say with the utmost certainty that the value of Property, Real Estate and Automobiles, in particular, are not determined by the free market or actual resale value.

I know of a property in rural NY and the owner since 1964 is letting it go. There is a little over 30 wooded acres with wild life. Going on auction block with no minimum and no reserve. Suppose you bid $1 and win it. Taxes are over $13,000 per year for this vacant lot with no water or sewer. 10 acres nearby with home can be had for $175,000.

A person gets this property for free or it is for sale for 15 years and never sells and finally sells for let's say $30,000 but nooooo the Govt says property worth $306,000 and demands owner pay $13,000 per year in tax.

[ATruepatriot]

Wrong state to buy in then.

[Schifference]

Wrong state to buy in then.

Totally agree. Was having conversation with son and wife yesterday regarding this land. Told them better to buy a Picasso because it costs nothing for property tax and you get to look at it every day. Real Estate costs you more over time in taxes than property worth when you sell it. In this case owner would probably be happy to just get rid of it to get off the tax hook line.

[ATruepatriot]

Totally agree. Was having conversation with son and wife yesterday regarding this land. Told them better to buy a Picasso because it costs nothing for property tax and you get to look at it every day. Real Estate costs you more over time in taxes than property worth when you sell it. In this case owner would probably be happy to just get rid of it to get off the tax hook line.

That same raw land in Az would cost about $300 to $700 a year in taxes depending on how remote it is. We have 100 acres of remote but 1/2 developed with several commercial buildings land in Ca and even it only runs $2,500 a year. ( an anchor I would like to cut loose)

[Schifference]

That same raw land in Az would cost about $300 to $700 a year in taxes depending on how remote it is. We have 100 acres of remote but 1/2 developed with several commercial buildings land in Ca and even it only runs $2,500 a year. ( an anchor I would like to cut loose)

The school portion of the tax is over $9,000 on this vacant land.

[PAF]

The school portion of the tax is over $9,000 on this vacant land.

I believe if the owner has children and choose to attend public school, local taxes could be applied. But if no children, or not utilizing public school, and not tapped into public water/sewage/trash/etc., NO taxes should be imposed.

This is one of the issues not being discussed which is why there is no momentum to stop this theft.

As for the government declaring a falsified value - of course that is Grand Theft, not related to automobiles.

[oyarde]

I can say with the utmost certainty that the value of Property, Real Estate and Automobiles, in particular, are not determined by the free market or actual resale value.

I know of a property in rural NY and the owner since 1964 is letting it go. There is a little over 30 wooded acres with wild life. Going on auction block with no minimum and no reserve. Suppose you bid $1 and win it. Taxes are over $13,000 per year for this vacant lot with no water or sewer. 10 acres nearby with home can be had for $175,000.

A person gets this property for free or it is for sale for 15 years and never sells and finally sells for let's say $30,000 but nooooo the Govt says property worth $306,000 and demands owner pay $13,000 per year in tax.

Where I am primary residence is capped at one percent of assessed value . There is a higher percentage for rentals , commercial property and farmland ( those run 2 to 3 percent ). So if I had a cottage on that thirty acres and it was assessed at some grossly over inflated 450k and I lived there it would run 4500 a year or 375 a month if you had it on your 30 yr mortgage payment or whatever . But yes you are right , I would not buy that in NY and if you had too I would go with the home & 10 acres for 175K over that . Here you just have to watch you assessment , since it is capped by the state Constitution the only way they can increase your tax is by raising the assessed value . You can contest it , I have before . Once settled it was still too high on that particular rental home on 1/2 acre but they meet me halfway and dropped it 20k ( assessment ) . Like ny it all goes to fund public education. Otherwise it would not be needed at all here

[Schifference]

I believe if the owner has children and choose to attend public school, local taxes could be applied. But if no children, or not utilizing public school, and not tapped into public water/sewage/trash/etc., NO taxes should be imposed.

This is one of the issues not being discussed which is why there is no momentum to stop this theft.

As for the government declaring a falsified value - of course that is Grand Theft, not related to automobiles.

Here in Bristol CT automobiles are not treated fairly either. They take high end retail from some particular book value. So if your vehicle has dents, scratches, torn interior, rusted out, whatever you pay high end retail. You can make an appointment and drive it to the facility and get an inspection but in my experience that is a waste of time because the person is not willing to budge much. I had an 04 two wheel drive Silverado and years ago brought it to dispute the tax. The vehicle had been in a Tornado and tree limbs had fallen on it and caused body damage. Guy would not lower assessment.

[PAF]

Here in Bristol CT automobiles are not treated fairly either. They take high end retail from some particular book value. So if your vehicle has dents, scratches, torn interior, rusted out, whatever you pay high end retail. You can make an appointment and drive it to the facility and get an inspection but in my experience that is a waste of time because the person is not willing to budge much. I had an 04 two wheel drive Silverado and years ago brought it to dispute the tax. The vehicle had been in a Tornado and tree limbs had fallen on it and caused body damage. Guy would not lower assessment.

This is another thing that irks me...

People are required to carry auto insurance which I have no problem with. If one is unfortunate to have an accident, cause harm to property or person, insurance kicks in and the rate is adjusted accordingly. There is NO reason to be double-penalized by "LEO" or "government entity" by way of tickets, fines, suspension or other; the insurance that one pays for is perfectly adequate. "Speeding" to get where one is going on time should not be punished if no accident occurs, or harm to property or person.

Simply put: No Harm, No Crime, No Penalty.

[Schifference]

This is another thing that irks me...

People are required to carry auto insurance which I have no problem with. If one is unfortunate to have an accident, cause harm to property or person, insurance kicks in and the rate is adjusted accordingly. There is NO reason to be double-penalized by "LEO" or "government entity" by way of tickets, fines, suspension or other; the insurance that one pays for is perfectly adequate. "Speeding" to get where one is going on time should not be punished if no accident occurs, or harm to property or person.

Simply put: No Harm, No Crime, No Penalty.

I can go one better. Here in CT I had a vehicle that I took out of service. No longer needed it. I cancelled the insurance. Got a several hundred dollar fine from DMV that I had to maintain insurance on any vehicle that I owned. Would have to show proof that sold or scrapped or moved out of state to not pay fine. A couple years later one of my vehicles registration was due. I registered vehicle in another state where I own property. I never renewed registration let it expire. Couple months later got the same fine. In this instance I had insurance on vehicle past date of getting registered out of state. Had to submit all kinds of paperwork to get DMV to waive fine.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I don't understand why there aren't more people outraged by property taxes in the U.S.

If I make 1 dollar or 1 billion dollars a year I still have to pay that 10k or whatever a year.

It's a poor person's tax.

I'm super cheap, count every penny, spend as little as possible, but I need to give the government 10k a year for the privilege of having a home. And that's on top of actually maintaining it and paying electric/water!!! It's also clear money, after taxes. So if you get taxed 25% of your income, you need to basically earn 13k. That's working a single part time job 15 hours week year round like some kind of tax slave. I could make living off 13k a year work. I need a new car, but some cop's lifetime health plan or school superintendent's quarter million dollar salary is much more important than my life and well being. If I lived alone I'd have to move.

No one talks about how much of a screwed up system it is to go through public school, then when becoming a working adult you still need to pay thousands a year so other kids can go through those lovely halfway houses/glorified daycares. It's like giving your school alimoney after divorcing it when you graduate from grade 12.

And before someone says "but muh police and fire and roads" A lot of communities more than half the property tax goes directly to schools. Also, I'd rather drive on dirt roads than pay such an exorbitant fee. For 13k a year I could install steel doors, buy a modified roomba that tasers intruder's in the groin, and install sprinklers in my $#@!ing house.

Shotgun + ammo: $350 - one time cost
Sprinklers: $3000-4000 - one time cost
Paving the street in front of your house: $1500-2000 - every 10-15 years?
Tasering Roomba: $????

[Schifference]

I don't understand why there aren't more people outraged by property taxes in the U.S.

If I make 1 dollar or 1 billion dollars a year I still have to pay that 10k or whatever a year.

It's a poor person's tax.

I'm super cheap, count every penny, spend as little as possible, but I need to give the government 10k a year for the privilege of having a home. And that's on top of actually maintaining it and paying electric/water!!! It's also clear money, after taxes. So if you get taxed 25% of your income, you need to basically earn 13k. That's working a single part time job 15 hours week year round like some kind of tax slave. I could make living off 13k a year work. I need a new car, but some cop's lifetime health plan or school superintendent's quarter million dollar salary is much more important than my life and well being. If I lived alone I'd have to move.

No one talks about how much of a screwed up system it is to go through public school, then when becoming a working adult you still need to pay thousands a year so other kids can go through those lovely halfway houses/glorified daycares. It's like giving your school alimoney after divorcing it when you graduate from grade 12.

And before someone says "but muh police and fire and roads" A lot of communities more than half the property tax goes directly to schools. Also, I'd rather drive on dirt roads than pay such an exorbitant fee. For 13k a year I could install steel doors, buy a modified roomba that tasers intruder's in the groin, and install sprinklers in my $#@!ing house.

And that tax is on vacant land with no water or sewer.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

And that tax is on vacant land with no water or sewer.

Property taxes are superficial and don't account for anything that makes sense. I turned an extra bathroom into a half bath and the property tax still went up.

[Schifference]

Property taxes are superficial and don't account for anything that makes sense. I turned an extra bathroom into a half bath and the property tax still went up.

Wait until they decide to help the homeless. People that could live on the street for free will one day be mandated to pay for shelter.

[Zippyjuan]

California property tax is based on what you purchased it at- not what the government thinks it is worth or what your neighbor paid for a similar property.

[Anti Federalist]

People are required to carry auto insurance which I have no problem with.

You have no problem with a government created monopoly forcing people at the barrel of a gun to buy a product that they may not want or need?

And I'm the statist????

[PAF]

You have no problem with a government created monopoly forcing people at the barrel of a gun to buy a product that they may not want or need?

And I'm the statist????

That is another loophole question that I have pondered. Here is what I reasoned:

I do not like LEO, they are nothing more than extortionists and will create/abandon any statute/ordinance they choose at the expense of innocents.

If one owns a vehicle, it is advantageous to carry insurance in the event of a catastrophe, 1. so that if I or my property is harmed I am able to recuperate my loss(es), 2. pay the deducible and the person responsible doesn't have to worry so much about losing everything in order to make things square for me. 3. If one chooses not to travel by motor carriage, there is no obligation to carry insurance, unless he/she decides to rent, in which case insurance can be purchased through the rental agency.

Of course if one is wealthy enough (Agorist theory), they may choose not to purchase insurance at all, but must weigh those options if/when faced in claims court.

It is a contractual agreement which fits within Free Market principles. Government extortion to ticket, fine or suspend to fund the state, even if no harm has been done (in the case of speeding or a U-turn when conditions permit) is not.

Without government interference and lobbyists, the Free Market would sort the "monopolies" out.

Whachya think?

[Anti Federalist]

That is another loophole question that I have pondered. Here is what I reasoned:

I do not like LEO, they are nothing more than extortionists and will create/abandon any statute/ordinance they choose at the expense of innocents.

If one owns a vehicle, it is advantageous to carry insurance in the event of a catastrophe, 1. so that if I or my property is harmed I am able to recuperate my loss(es), 2. pay the deducible and the person responsible doesn't have to worry so much about losing everything in order to make things square for me. 3. If one chooses not to travel by motor carriage, there is no obligation to carry insurance, unless he/she decides to rent, in which case insurance can be purchased through the rental agency.

Of course if one is wealthy enough (Agorist theory), they may choose not to purchase insurance at all, but must weigh those options if/when faced in claims court.

It is a contractual agreement which fits within Free Market principles. Government extortion to ticket, fine or suspend to fund the state, even if no harm has been done (in the case of speeding or a U-turn when conditions permit) is not.

Without government interference and lobbyists, the Free Market would sort the "monopolies" out.

Whachya think?

I agree 100 percent.

This is the system we have in place in NH (for now anyways, the new democrat Bolshevik legislature in Concord has vowed to overturn it).

We are one of the few states in the country that do not require auto insurance of any kind to drive a car on public roads.

Consequently, we have have some of the lowest rates in the country and one of the highest rates of insured motorists, because there is no government mandated monopoly.

Yet.

[PAF]

I agree 100 percent.

This is the system we have in place in NH (for now anyways, the new democrat Bolshevik legislature in Concord has vowed to overturn it).

We are one of the few states in the country that do not require auto insurance of any kind to drive a car on public roads.

Consequently, we have have some of the lowest rates in the country and one of the highest rates of insured motorists, because there is no government mandated monopoly.

Yet.

PA requires it. Ohio used to be optional but I do not know the current status, I will check it out. Aren't you near the Free State Project? If so, what is the momentum these days? According to the 10th, states rights, if else, peoples rights... is anybody going that route?

[Anti Federalist]

PA requires it. Ohio used to be optional but I do not know the current status, I will check it out. Aren't you near the Free State Project? If so, what is the momentum these days? According to the 10th, states rights, if else, peoples rights... is anybody going that route?

Near?

You mean where a lot of Free Staters were planning to move to, the Grafton area?

The movement was state wide.

Whatever momentum there was is gone, at least as far as I can see and what voting trends are revealing.

Lots of the young (and absurdly confused) young RP people, jumped on the Bernie train.

NH state politics has reverted back to a partisan "purple" battleground...of which I had to jump into as well...not that I wanted to, but had no choice, to beat back incomes taxes, gun bans, and whole slew of leftist wish list items.

PorcFest is coming up soon...June 18–23, 2019...Sadly I'll be stuck working...maybe somebody can attend and report back.

[PAF]

Near?

You mean where a lot of Free Staters were planning to move to, the Grafton area?

The movement was state wide.

Whatever momentum there was is gone, at least as far as I can see and what voting trends are revealing.

Lots of the young (and absurdly confused) young RP people, jumped on the Bernie train.

NH state politics has reverted back to a partisan "purple" battleground...of which I had to jump into as well...not that I wanted to, but had no choice, to beat back incomes taxes, gun bans, and whole slew of leftist wish list items.

PorcFest is coming up soon...June 18–23, 2019...Sadly I'll be stuck working...maybe somebody can attend and report back.

Damn, I lost site of PorcFest, I really wanted to go, but I will be in Mexico during that time. I am shooting for Anarchopulco 2020.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the majority of the Free State'rs in the Keene area? I lived in Jaffrey for a couple of years but that was well before FS ever took root.

Are there still some activist who hold weekly's, educational and what not? It surprises me that as "republican" as NH used to be that more haven't hopped on that bandwagon.

Maybe hit the monthly gun shows, set up a table and pass out info and literature about things affecting our country. We have been very successful and still do it, issues such as Agenda 21, politicians "On the Record", local issues such as red light cameras (they actually won the ballot and removed all of them), etc. It beats door to door, you will never find more gun-toting republicans at one single spot than a gun show - they come to you ;-)

[Swordsmyth]

You have no problem with a government created monopoly forcing people at the barrel of a gun to buy a product that they may not want or need?

And I'm the statist????

He has been exposing more and more statist positions lately.

[Swordsmyth]

This is another thing that irks me...

People are required to carry auto insurance which I have no problem with. If one is unfortunate to have an accident, cause harm to property or person, insurance kicks in and the rate is adjusted accordingly. There is NO reason to be double-penalized by "LEO" or "government entity" by way of tickets, fines, suspension or other; the insurance that one pays for is perfectly adequate. "Speeding" to get where one is going on time should not be punished if no accident occurs, or harm to property or person.

Simply put: No Harm, No Crime, No Penalty.

That is another loophole question that I have pondered. Here is what I reasoned:

I do not like LEO, they are nothing more than extortionists and will create/abandon any statute/ordinance they choose at the expense of innocents.

If one owns a vehicle, it is advantageous to carry insurance in the event of a catastrophe, 1. so that if I or my property is harmed I am able to recuperate my loss(es), 2. pay the deducible and the person responsible doesn't have to worry so much about losing everything in order to make things square for me. 3. If one chooses not to travel by motor carriage, there is no obligation to carry insurance, unless he/she decides to rent, in which case insurance can be purchased through the rental agency.

Of course if one is wealthy enough (Agorist theory), they may choose not to purchase insurance at all, but must weigh those options if/when faced in claims court.

It is a contractual agreement which fits within Free Market principles. Government extortion to ticket, fine or suspend to fund the state, even if no harm has been done (in the case of speeding or a U-turn when conditions permit) is not.

Without government interference and lobbyists, the Free Market would sort the "monopolies" out.

Whachya think?

You said you had no problem with government requiring it, are you taking that back or not?

[Anti Federalist]

Damn, I lost site of PorcFest, I really wanted to go, but I will be in Mexico during that time. I am shooting for Anarchopulco 2020.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the majority of the Free State'rs in the Keene area? I lived in Jaffrey for a couple of years but that was well before FS ever took root.

Are there still some activist who hold weekly's, educational and what not? It surprises me that as "republican" as NH used to be that more haven't hopped on that bandwagon.

Maybe hit the monthly gun shows, set up a table and pass out info and literature about things affecting our country. We have been very successful and still do it, issues such as Agenda 21, politicians "On the Record", local issues such as red light cameras (they actually won the ballot and removed all of them), etc. It beats door to door, you will never find more gun-toting republicans at one single spot than a gun show - they come to you ;-)

Oh yeah, the "Free Keene" folks.

I never met many of them, I'm all the way on the other side of the state.

I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure what was going on, but I sure haven't heard much from them lately.

I belong to NHLA and have done a bunch of those items...probably should get more involved again.

[Anti Federalist]

Are there still some activist who hold weekly's, educational and what not? It surprises me that as "republican" as NH used to be that more haven't hopped on that bandwagon.

County by county results of the 2018 gov. race.



I noticed some interesting shifts.

The far north, Coos Co. used to be solidly blue, mostly French Catholic. They went for Sununu because, rightly or wrongly, because many of the mills that had been idle for decades now are back up and running. Berlin went from a ghost town to, well, not "bustling", but not dead either.

The solid blue counties now mimic so many other urban areas, the cluster of the three largest city areas.

[PAF]

You said you had no problem with government requiring it, are you taking that back or not?

I never said anything about "government" requiring it. I think if people really put some thought into it, weigh the options, consider the financial risk/ramifications, most would opt to purchase insurance, not just to protect others, but themselves.

You quoted my explanation, perhaps you did not thoroughly read it:

That is another loophole question that I have pondered. Here is what I reasoned:

I do not like LEO, they are nothing more than extortionists and will create/abandon any statute/ordinance they choose at the expense of innocents.

If one owns a vehicle, it is advantageous to carry insurance in the event of a catastrophe, 1. so that if I or my property is harmed I am able to recuperate my loss(es), 2. pay the deducible and the person responsible doesn't have to worry so much about losing everything in order to make things square for me. 3. If one chooses not to travel by motor carriage, there is no obligation to carry insurance, unless he/she decides to rent, in which case insurance can be purchased through the rental agency.

Of course if one is wealthy enough (Agorist theory), they may choose not to purchase insurance at all, but must weigh those options if/when faced in claims court.

It is a contractual agreement which fits within Free Market principles. Government extortion to ticket, fine or suspend to fund the state, even if no harm has been done (in the case of speeding or a U-turn when conditions permit) is not.

Without government interference and lobbyists, the Free Market would sort the "monopolies" out.

Whachya think?

So, whachya think?

[PAF]

County by county results of the 2018 gov. race.



I noticed some interesting shifts.

The far north, Coos Co. used to be solidly blue, mostly French Catholic. They went for Sununu because, rightly or wrongly, because many of the mills that had been idle for decades now are back up and running. Berlin went from a ghost town to, well, not "bustling", but not dead either.

The solid blue counties now mimic so many other urban areas, the cluster of the three largest city areas.

I belong to NHLA and have done a bunch of those items...probably should get more involved again.

I hope you do get more involved again, it is definitely a workable state.... unlike much of PA where I am currently.

[Swordsmyth]

I never said anything about "government" requiring it. I think if people really put some thought into it, weigh the options, consider the financial risk/ramifications, most would opt to purchase insurance, not just to protect others, but themselves.

You quoted my explanation, perhaps you did not thoroughly read it:




So, whachya think?

Who DOES require it?
Why are you fine with that?
How can anyone but government "require" it?
Or are you retracting the statement?

Originally Posted by PAF
This is another thing that irks me...

People are required to carry auto insurance which I have no problem with.

[PAF]

Who DOES require it?
Why are you fine with that?
How can anyone but government "require" it?
Or are you retracting the statement?

I clarified my initial statement with my second post.

My goal is to help educate others about the difference between relying on government, and private solutions. Though there are some exceptions, many people do want to do the right thing and take some level of pride with self-responsibility.

So, do you agree with my clarified second statement, or not (Post #17)? Come on, Swordy, you can do it - just say yes :-)

[Swordsmyth]

I clarified my initial statement with my second post.

My goal is to help educate others about the difference between relying on government, and private solutions. Though there are some exceptions, many people do want to do the right thing and take some level of pride with self-responsibility.

So, do you agree with my clarified second statement, or not (Post #17)? Come on, Swordy, you can do it - just say yes :-)

I agree with the second statement, I take it you are saying that you officially retracting the statement that you are fine with car insurance being REQUIRED?