Terrell misread what I said in the first snip. I clearly said there was a problem with simply deferring based on age. Terrell agrees.
My mention of taking the depot off the tax rolls wasn't aimed at whether it happens, it was aimed at doing so for no useful purpose. I would imagine that UST probably contributes more to the economy than the depot shell game would. I can't recall whether I ended my California reference to the current (poor) state of their schools, I thought that I did. I wasn't arguing for what Prop 13 did, it was a predictably bad idea. Bruce Gaarder Highland Park Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Terrell Brown wrote: > > Bruce Gaarder writes: > > > > > > David pointed out one problem with simply deferring tax increases based on > > age. Another would be for those with significant wealth. To > > pick on Pohlad, if such a system were in place, he would have had about > twenty > > years of not paying higher taxes. > > [TB] The assumption that the wealthy would abuse such a program may not be > valid, an income and/or net worth test would be reasonably simple to > implement. > > Remember that California fixed taxable value at the time of purchase and > > it never changes until the house is sold. > > [TB] How do you justify as fair a higher tax on the home on the north end > of the block than the identical home on the south end of the block that > hasn't been sold since 1967? The owner of the home on the north end of the > block is justified in objecting to the inequity. Owners of homes that were > market value limited should be glad they had a good thing while it lasted. > > Certainly circuit breakers or other income related limits or credits are > possibilities, but are they a good thing if they are financed by a more > regressive tax (i.e. sales tax)? _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
