WolfpackFan
Chathamohican
 Offline
Last Login: Today at 07:33:41 AM
Date Registerd:February 23, 2006, 04:33:05 PM
Posts: 6861
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2008, 07:46:02 PM » |
|
I have a question and if I am thinking about this wrong, please feel free to correct me.
Reeval years are supposed to be revenue neutral. So if you reeval in a down year, you get to raise rates and remain neutral. And when the markets turns around, you have higher rates and higher house prices which equals more money?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
More today than yesterday - Mindy
|
|
|
chatres
Chathamite
Offline
Last Login:January 30, 2012, 09:31:35 PM
Date Registerd:August 25, 2007, 10:10:42 AM
Posts: 362
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2008, 08:03:35 PM » |
|
I have a question and if I am thinking about this wrong, please feel free to correct me.
Reeval years are supposed to be revenue neutral. So if you reeval in a down year, you get to raise rates and remain neutral. And when the markets turns around, you have higher rates and higher house prices which equals more money?
Chatham's RE-EVAL go UP UP UP, irregardless of what "ever". Chatham Co. totally sucks in th tax dept. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 03:56:52 AM by chatres »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mamacash
Chathamohican
Offline
Last Login:May 12, 2009, 12:25:57 PM
Date Registerd:April 02, 2008, 04:02:10 PM
Posts: 2299
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2008, 08:26:45 PM » |
|
I would also like to know what the taxes are paying for on a line to line basis....I find it hard to believe there can not be some wasteful spending that needs to be looked into....all forms of government have had a carte blanche attitude for some time now and there needs to be more accountability for the taxpayers. If we all must tighten up our belts and live more frugally then it can only be said that so goes the government agency's and I am not advocating cutting programs...I am advocating full responsibility to the taxpayers and full disclosure to the taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
First do no harm
|
|
|
Stargazer
Chathamohican
Offline
Last Login:August 02, 2011, 08:36:13 AM
Date Registerd:February 11, 2006, 09:37:27 AM
Posts: 1454
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2008, 10:02:55 PM » |
|
I would also like to know what the taxes are paying for on a line to line basis....
I agree. But whenever you look at a county budget it's vague and more or less "fluff" - I'd be much more in favor or revaluations now if I thought our county government treated their budget as most of its citizens cope with their own. BTW the school budget is the same "smoke and mirrors." I'm certainly not opposed to government spending - I'd just like transparency. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
srvfan
Chathamohican
Offline
Last Login:December 19, 2011, 03:12:54 PM
Date Registerd:February 10, 2006, 03:21:51 PM
Posts: 1284
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2008, 05:47:04 PM » |
|
Now is the time to seriously start looking into tax revenues coming from somewhere other than property taxes.
The reason I say this is because the expenses are not based on the value of someone's property so why should the revenue be based on that value?
Does a $250,000 house generate more expenses than a $150,000 house?
It's time to consider user fees which IMO are the only equitable and fair way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The government forces those who sell pharmaceutical drugs to list the possible side effects, even if only a few people will suffer those side effects. Unfortunately, the government itself never tells us about the bad side effects of the things it prescribes."- Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
natvrabit
Chathamohican
Offline
Last Login: Yesterday at 08:01:24 PM
Date Registerd:March 08, 2008, 02:45:06 PM
Posts: 6478
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2008, 05:59:15 PM » |
|
Correct me if I am wrong in my thought lines here. Last revaluation folks were stunned by the increases in "values" (which we now know were overinflated false figures in the entire housing market frenzy/"scam"). For myself it certainly meant a property tax increase and also more money out the door on insurance to cover as valued cost replacement. NOW, we know the "truth" in that we have forked out more than we should have the past 4 years. With the upcoming valuation and corrected market figures, it will be a rebate of sorts (technically) of overcharges.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Silk_Hope
Chathamohican
Offline
Last Login: Today at 09:25:10 AM
Date Registerd:April 02, 2007, 08:29:04 PM
Posts: 8297
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2008, 08:09:18 PM » |
|
But will there be enough data of comparable sales in the county to truly reflect the housing market to do an accurate reevaluation?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
natvrabit
Chathamohican
Offline
Last Login: Yesterday at 08:01:24 PM
Date Registerd:March 08, 2008, 02:45:06 PM
Posts: 6478
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2008, 08:18:56 PM » |
|
Don't know SH. Is going to be interesting to see where the figures land. We have what was going to become equestrian estate lots in the county now aiming for cemetery plots for us (Belmeade)  There's that death and taxes for sure thingy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
randy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2008, 01:25:12 PM » |
|
Don't know SH. Is going to be interesting to see where the figures land. We have what was going to become equestrian estate lots in the county now aiming for cemetery plots for us (Belmeade) There's that death and taxes for sure thingy. People are just dying to get into that tax bracket  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
