dadofone wrote:

WatchDog wrote:

Come on, you two. What difference does the process make? As long as it is equal across the board in the way property is evaluated for taxes and everyone gets the same treatment, then in the long run it won't matter. It will all come out in the end as being fair.

Russ seems to have one favorable point. We could save a fair bundle by eliminating a bunch of auditors. That makes some sense to me. I am all for less government costs.


Russ' "favorable point" is based on valuing property only when it is sold. Do you think that is being "equal across the board in the way property is evalutated for taxes?" I certainly don't.


What I think is that you don't hear what he is attempting to say. Nor did you hear my comment that, as long as everyone gets the same treatment, it would all come out the same in the end. Nor do you choose to address what I feel is a good point that he makes. Why pay a bunch of auditors and perhaps allow unfairness to come into play because of what might be their potential bias?

Seems that it may be you with the listening problem.

WatchDog wrote:

dadofone wrote:

WatchDog wrote:

Come on, you two. What difference does the process make? As long as it is equal across the board in the way property is evaluated for taxes and everyone gets the same treatment, then in the long run it won't matter. It will all come out in the end as being fair.

Russ seems to have one favorable point. We could save a fair bundle by eliminating a bunch of auditors. That makes some sense to me. I am all for less government costs.


Russ' "favorable point" is based on valuing property only when it is sold. Do you think that is being "equal across the board in the way property is evalutated for taxes?" I certainly don't.


What I think is that you don't hear what he is attempting to say. Nor did you hear my comment that, as long as everyone gets the same treatment, it would all come out the same in the end. Nor do you choose to address what I feel is a good point that he makes. Why pay a bunch of auditors and perhaps allow unfairness to come into play because of what might be their potential bias?

Seems that it may be you with the listening problem.


Hmmm . . . that's funny. Now I don't think you've read my responses. I did hear what he is trying to say and in my first response I told him why I thought it would be a good bad idea. Rather than responding to my rebuttal, he then decided to start using non sequiturs and ad hominems.

Now, I did respond to your point that you felt he had a good point by saying his point was based on a faulty premise. Is that not a valid response?

As for you, you've now chosen to introduce new information into your response which I had no opportunity to respond to before. You ask "Why pay a bunch of auditors and perhaps allow unfairness to come into play becaue of what might be their potential bias?

Okay, first of all, we need to clear up that I don't really think Russ meant "auditors" but rather "assessors". The assessors may have a bias but that's why we have auditors as well. The auditors should be looking out for bias and making sure it doesn't enter the equation.

Now, you (and Russ) might say, "Well that's great, now I've got two jobs I'm paying for just to get a fair market value on property. Why not just get rid of them both and value property based on the last selling price?"

Well, I've already told you why I don't think that is fair or equitable and neither of you have chosen to respond to that point.

WatchDog wrote:

Nor did you hear my comment that, as long as everyone gets the same treatment, it would all come out the same in the end.


I didn't hear that? Are you kidding? I directly addressed that comment of yours when I responded that I don't think it is being "equal across the board" to value property based on its last selling price?

Hmmmm, you seem to have failed to answer whether you agree or not.

Listen, Russ made a valid point at first. I even told him it was "all well and good". But then I told him why I didn't think it was fair. His response was more or less "Life's not fair buddy" (duh!) and a bunch of non sequiturs and personal attacks. I didn't say life was, or even should be, fair. But do you (or Russ) think tax policy should be fair? I do and I told you why I don't think Russ' policy would be fair.

Neither of you have chosen to respond telling me why it would be a fair, equitable tax policy to value property based on its last selling price.

I'm waiting . . .

Keep on smiting me if it makes you feel better; I don't mind. But your words have so far been lacking . . .

Any rebuttal to anything that I've said? Any defense for your information that has been found to be incorrect? Would you like to point out where I've misled anyone in this thread?

Hmmmm . . . that's funny. I mention smiting and all of a sudden I get two more, almost simultaneously. Could it be that "Russ" and "WatchDog" are the same person? I don't know but it's quite curious. Russ' last activity on the site is Today at 06:40:10 PM and WatchDog's is Today at 06:40:53 PM.

Very interesting . . .

dadofone wrote:

Hmmmm . . . that's funny. I mention smiting and all of a sudden I get two more, almost simultaneously. Could it be that "Russ" and "WatchDog" are the same person? I don't know but it's quite curious. Russ' last activity on the site is Today at 06:40:10 PM and WatchDog's is Today at 06:40:53 PM.

Very interesting . . .

I just gave you an applaud to offset at least one of those smites. I guess smites are the only way some people feel they can get back at you.

For what it's worth, I have been reading your comments on taxation. Good posts!