Discussion in 'Current Events' started by manifold, Mar 1, 2009.
Chelmsford tests bounds of laws on revenue raising on its mobile home community - Lowell Sun Online
I see no reason not to tax trailers as homes.
After all, people do live in them. The owner is charging rent for them.
However, as they are usually a diminishing asset, their taxes should reflect that reality, too.
They're not real estate.
Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.
And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?
And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?
typically, the owner of the trailer park rents the land on which the trailer sits to individuals who supply their own trailer. if someone rented a space and pitched a tent, should they be taxed for the tent?
i don't know, myself, but it seems that going after people living in trailers is a bit beyond the pale. maybe chelmsford should consider tightening its belt, maybe lay off some school administrators, for example.
They're mobile homes. If they're to be taxed, it should be an exise tax like the one I pay for my car. And it should be levied on the owner of the asset. What's happening in this case is the land owner is being taxed for property he doesn't own.
ahh, i missed that part. in that case, it's definitely wrong.
Typically then, the OWNERS of the trailers are assessed taxes based on their value.
What am I missing here?
ARe you suggesting that only houses with basements are real estate?
But they have to have the school administrators to make sure they have all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted to keep the feds happy...
see mani's post for clarification. a trailer depreciates in value like a car, and should be taxed accordingly. in no way should someone who doesn't own an asset be taxed for it, which seems to be the case here.
Separate names with a comma.