"View tax" in the Washington Post

[KBCraig]

It's a 3-page article with pictures, so I won't copy the text here. It's better in the original.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111300965.html

[freedombabe]

View tax?  Absolutely ridiculous. 

The property is worth whatever the market will bear.  Period.

[Dreepa]

The 'view tax' is something that the media is calling it.
The tax is reflecting what the market will bear.
If a farmer has 100 acres with a great view. His tax is going up.  That is what the market is doing.  Great views means more worth means higher taxes.

[freedombabe]

Thanks for the clarification, Deepa.

[KBCraig]

The 'view tax' is something that the media is calling it.
The tax is reflecting what the market will bear.
If a farmer has 100 acres with a great view. His tax is going up.  That is what the market is doing.  Great views means more worth means higher taxes.

Then when the farmer sells his property, the new owner can pay taxes based on the only true value: what the market decided that one time, between those two parties.

Taxing a farmer into ruination because some Mass. millionaires want a place with a view is immoral. It's no different than sending you a bill for the value of your stock portfolio when you haven't sold any stocks or realized any profit.

Kevin

[Dreepa]

So if I buy my house in 1970 and pay $10K  and have 10 kids that use the school system.  I should be taxed on that $10K value forever?

[KBCraig]

So if I buy my house in 1970 and pay $10K  and have 10 kids that use the school system.  I should be taxed on that $10K value forever?

Sure. But you should pay for your childrens' educations, which is a separate issue.

[Dreepa]

I agree that is a different issue.
They would just do what many of the towns do in NH.
It they don't raise the value of your house they just raise the rate in which you are taxed.
That is what my town just did.