View Single Post
Old 07-11-2012, 09:18 PM   #79
SteveEisenberg
Grand Sorcerer
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,435
Karma: 43514536
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by covingtoncat73 View Post
That is ridiculous!
It's just the way it was presented that makes it sound that way.

Properties with wonderful vistas (wonderful by the standards of the average home buyer) have a higher property value compared with houses next door to a brand new trash dump -- even if the houses are identical and in the same town. When houses are re-appraised for property tax purposes, location is quite properly considered. That all the anti-tax-activist phrase "view tax" means.
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote