OlDawg

@thetragichippy knows. He and I usually agree on quite a bit. I'm surprised he likes the government involvement in rate setting. There's a good example of the differences between a conservative and a libertarian. One wants to control a social behavior based on their own moral values. (Even though it's an admirable desire.) The other doesn't.

So, you think it's win for the government to involve themselves in private business? Is it also a great idea for them to tell restaurants what they can serve, and how much people can eat because folks love the food so much they eat too much and have health issues?

Probably not that much. Similar geographic area. Would depend on labor and flood/natural disaster ratings since y'all are right together more I would think. But, people also forget, your locale's fire protection rating also has a major impact. If your city's insurance is cheaper (the insurance they actually buy for themselves as a municipality) because of the way they have their fire stations located, it would have an effect on your personal insurance. This could also affect your rebuild costs. That's another reason it would be almost impossible to have exactly the same tax rates. Not totally impossible. But very rare, as no two houses are exactly the same. Individual credit ratings are another differentiator if using replacement value as appraised value, since part of your insurance cost to rebuild is based on your credit rating.

I'm lost. If the replacement cost is different, the tax bill would be different. If your land floods, and his doesn't, replacement costs wouldn't be the same. Insurance requirements to rebuild would be different.

You are obviously very unaware of how construction estimating works. The prices are based on local areas as I've mentioned. The only way for the taxes to be the same--other than sheer chance--is if the exact same house was built in the exact same area, using the exact same materials, the exact same labor, and the exact same logistical costs. The scenario I described does occur. Drive up to Lower Greenville area in DFW. All you see now is McMansions filled with yuppies. Every so often, you'll see a nice, older home. But, not too often at all.

I'm not sure you understand my insurance value appraisal stance. In my scenario, the land is moot except for incidental value related to costs of rebuilding (ie. ease of access for reconstruction, utilities, etc.). The property value of the home would be based on rebuild costs that are already used for labor and material costs in any design/engineering/construction area. The estimated costs are area and regional specific. These costs typically include locational differences which would account for your developed vs not question. (You could also set a limit on acreage included with the improvement value on the property, and have anything greater be taxed at unimproved acreage levels in addition. This would address your larger lot concerns.) The numbers used are what engineering/construction firms use when estimating project costs, and are basically industry standard numbers with slight deviations for special circumstances. They are also close to the numbers insurance companies use now for rebuild estimates. AI could make this very simple and efficient. So, relatively little extra expense for the insurance company to set a value, and keep it up-to-date yearly. Instead of a CAD, improved property tax appraisals would be based on the cost of materials and labor to rebuild your structure/home to a replacement scenario at the market conditions based on the previous year's estimate. Unimproved property taxes would still be taxed as they are currently. The way it is now is backwards. My home is almost 40 years old. It's nice, but not fancy. My appraisal is way more than what I can sell it. I've also had relatives in Dallas that were literally taxed and fee'd out of their homes (need a new roof, new paint job, any number of things) because the City wanted the older homes & residents with tax exemptions out. Then, they had developers buy, demolish, and rebuild new to resell where the City could increase it's tax base. As a bonus to this change, you could downsize another government department. Always a plus. 😁

I may think abortion on demand is wrong. But, it's not my place to interject in someone else's very personal matter. If the government wasn't so deeply involved in healthcare, your moral dilemma wouldn't be an issue. The answer isn't to fight the moral question. The answer is to minimize/eliminate government involvement in healthcare. Property taxes in Texas is an interesting question. I am more of a flat tax person vs. a consumption tax person. To me, a consumption tax stymies growth more than a flat tax. That being said, I'd prefer a flat tax (Federal) with property taxes. But, I would maintain a maximum level of property tax increase/year--with no loopholes--and have the tax rate of property be set by the insurable value after yearly appraisals. Not the other way around. The value of one's property should only be worth what it can be insured for in case of total loss.

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The government shouldn't be involved in the abortion or not business. If what someone does in their own home--or daily activities--does no harm to others, it's none of my business. The government wouldn't be involved if we hadn't invited them in.

I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. There's actually a pretty big difference in that and typical conservatism. Typical conservatives still believe in some market manipulation to help achieve their social goals. Liberals and Progressives are at the total opposite end of the spectrum from me from a fiscal and personal liberty stance.

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No. This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration. We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices. While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job. The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

Good summary article on the current state of personal finances. The actual numbers may surprise many. (Hint: Personal debt to income is at its lowest level since the 90’s.) [Hidden Content] Well done to those who are finally becoming more financially responsible. This is the real key to personal freedom.

La Porte Lady Dawgs vs Austin Anderson Tuesday, Feb. 24, 5:00 pm Brenham HS

Cuomo has no clue yet. He’s judging based on the wrong criteria & way too soon. The goal of tariffs was to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. That won’t happen overnight. While I may not be a fan, it’s too soon to know if they’re successful at the core goal yet.

I believe tariffs have only brought in about 1% of the national debt. That’s before some will probably be refunded. It would have been much better to cut spending from a fiscal standpoint. Of course, we know that’ll never happen. Neither Party will cut. I am still hopeful some needed items can be re-onshored. That—to me—was the actual goal. It’s still up in the air, and possibly won’t be known for a few years. It’s critical to bring back some pharma & semiconductors. (Even though I dislike the government buying stakes in private firms like they have done under this administration.) I am against the nationalization of industries from a competition aspect, and a socialistic approach in private enterprise. This shouldn’t be a government function other than to provide incentives—not ownership. GM still owes us around $14 billion. I’m not sure who is really running the fiscal show from the Administration. But, I’ve always questioned some of the moves as a private enterprise/free trader. Yes, there have been some successes. There’s also been a lot of turmoil.

I wouldn’t disagree with your take. I’d debate you on your second sentence is all. I think the lockdowns did affect not only the manufacturing of goods, but also the logistics of supply. We both agree the $1.9 Trillion wasn’t needed & actually hurt. It actually accomplished nothing of note. When the Feds kept raising rates, and the extra money people received ran out, they had to pull back some. That helped cool inflation as well.