Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TomC
if you turn this around, it illustrates an interesting concept to ponder: why does the same house, presumably creating the same burden on the town's infrastructure (ie schools, fire/police, etc), have to pay 10x the revenue to the coffers because it happens to sit next to a lake? There has to be some allocation, and the one that was settled upon was the 'value' of the property - but that can have little linkage, in terms of fairness, to the burden said property has on the town. A lakefront 2 BR, 600 ft^2 seasonal house with no permanent residents, no kids in school, etc may well owe more in taxes than the 10 room house off-lake cited above.. Is that fair? maybe it is, maybe it isn't
|
Supply and demand. Capitalism. Just like any business, the state will get as much out of you as you're willing to pay. Since waterfront homes are in high demand, they know that they can tax you heavily, and those properties will still be occupied. Would you argue that a hotel on the waterfront should charge the same rate as one in the middle of nowhere?
The majority of people in the lake's region don't live on the waterfront, and so the majority of people will benefit by utilizing the forces of supply and demand. If you don't want to pay the taxes, there will be another guy who will happily take your place.