'Save the Doyle': One couple's campaign to rescue an historic Appalachian Trail hotel

[greeter]

To me this is another example of the pernicious effects of "property tax". It's not really a tax because it is leveed without taking into consideration whether the tax payer has the money to pay it. No other form of taxation works this way. If you have no or little income, you pay no tax. If you don't buy anything, same. Retirees lose homes they "own" (no mortgage, paid off) to this tax which can go up if your neighbor builds a big house and the retirees' are reappraised higher. If the hotel makes money they pay income tax, too. We need to get rid of this archaic system based on the landed gentry of England before the days of income tax (a much more fair source of communal revenue, IMO). I stayed at the Doyle and got a sense of its former glory. Maybe if there had been no property tax the place could have been kept up all along.

[-Rush-]

To me this is another example of the pernicious effects of "property tax". It's not really a tax because it is leveed without taking into consideration whether the tax payer has the money to pay it. No other form of taxation works this way. If you have no or little income, you pay no tax. If you don't buy anything, same. Retirees lose homes they "own" (no mortgage, paid off) to this tax which can go up if your neighbor builds a big house and the retirees' are reappraised higher. If the hotel makes money they pay income tax, too. We need to get rid of this archaic system based on the landed gentry of England before the days of income tax (a much more fair source of communal revenue, IMO). I stayed at the Doyle and got a sense of its former glory. Maybe if there had been no property tax the place could have been kept up all along.

Add it to the list my friend.

[SWODaddy]

To me this is another example of the pernicious effects of "property tax". It's not really a tax because it is leveed without taking into consideration whether the tax payer has the money to pay it. No other form of taxation works this way. If you have no or little income, you pay no tax. If you don't buy anything, same. Retirees lose homes they "own" (no mortgage, paid off) to this tax which can go up if your neighbor builds a big house and the retirees' are reappraised higher. If the hotel makes money they pay income tax, too. We need to get rid of this archaic system based on the landed gentry of England before the days of income tax (a much more fair source of communal revenue, IMO). I stayed at the Doyle and got a sense of its former glory. Maybe if there had been no property tax the place could have been kept up all along.

No arguments here...at the root of it, you don't really "own" property, the government just makes you think you do.

[nehiker]

To me this is another example of the pernicious effects of "property tax". It's not really a tax because it is leveed without taking into consideration whether the tax payer has the money to pay it. No other form of taxation works this way. If you have no or little income, you pay no tax. If you don't buy anything, same. Retirees lose homes they "own" (no mortgage, paid off) to this tax which can go up if your neighbor builds a big house and the retirees' are reappraised higher. If the hotel makes money they pay income tax, too. We need to get rid of this archaic system based on the landed gentry of England before the days of income tax (a much more fair source of communal revenue, IMO). I stayed at the Doyle and got a sense of its former glory. Maybe if there had been no property tax the place could have been kept up all along.

Have you heard of market externalities? Private actions (by individuals and companies) can bring benefits to others for which the private entity is not rewarded/compensated by the market and can carry costs to others which are not borne by the private entity. Taxes are in principle intended to remedy this, though they have long been politicized.


There are costs to others of your owning a house/land. What these costs are depends on the location and has nothing to do with whether someone has paid off their mortgage. This is why farming/ranching is done in rural and often more remote areas. Someone owning a house in San Francisco means someone else has to compute to work. This obviously creates immediate costs to the latter, reduces his productivity (thus costs to his company and society), and adds to pollution (cost to the society). Duncannon is no SF, but there are still costs involved in providing services
(such as roads, police, fire, etc.).