Historical September 1987 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
You’ve got to give Grace M. Platt a good deal of credit for being very creative. Grace M. Platt is the tax assessor for Burlington, Connecticut. I read about Grace in the New York Times.
The headline for an article in the August 9 issue said “View Tax Outrages A Connecticut Town.” That’s right.
In an attempt to increase revenue, the town of Burlington, Conn. is levying “view taxes.” That is, they’re charging a special tax on a home because of the wonderful view from the home. Honest!
The article notes that a Mr. Kryszpin (honest again!) received a tax bill for $6,000, including a view tax surcharge of $1,500.
But wait, there is more.
To quote from the article: “Mrs. Platt said that her office had imposed surcharge taxes for homes that the town deemed ‘contemporary’ ” As I said, you’ve got to hand it to Grace Platt for being very creative.
After all, I’ve only lived in places that didn’t have good views, so it makes sense to me to tax those people who have something worth looking at outside their window.
My first apartment, for example, had one window overlooking a parking lot and another window opening to a Jack In The Box. Given the slow speed of the Jack In The Box drive-through, often I couldn’t tell which view was which (except for the odor, that is; the parking lot smelled better). I strongly support a view tax.
It seems only right that the folks whose windows overlook Delmar Avenue or a Domino’s Pizza have to pay more for their nightly enjoyment. Seeing the traffic on Delmar — it always reminds me of watching Dodge’em at an amusement park — is better than any t.v. show that I know.
If we could get a nudist colony to relocate to St. Louis to replace the General Motors Plant, there’d be enough view taxes levied to take care of all of us. Heck, with that much tax revenue we could build two stadiums downtown.
For that matter, I’m all for taxing contemporary architecture, too. I think we should tax well-mowed lawns and attractive landscaping. Those people who take the time to work on their lawn make the rest of us feel bad enough as it is.
There would at least be some justice if we could tax them.
While we’re taxing away, I think that we should tax people over the age of 17 who wash their cars. I’ve always thought of washing cars as similar to ironing one’s sheets or underwear. I mean, why bother?
The carwashing tax could be doubled if you washed a car without wearing a shirt and/or in a public street.
If you ironed your sheets or underwear in a public street, that would warrant a triple tax. I’d also tax people who phone the radio call-in shows.
Not just the ones who start with, “Who me? Am I on the air?” (although I’d surely tax them), but the ones who say stupid things.
Now since I think anyone who doesn’t agree with me is saying stupid things, this could be a really nice source for tax revenue.
It wouldn’t rival the nudist colony tax base, but it’d be better than what we get from our tax-abated downtown redevelopment projects. Actually, maybe we could just tax the hosts of the talk shows.
There are probably dumber people in the world than those working as hosts for radio talk shows, but I certainly don’t know of them. Someone once told me that the more you drive, the dumber you get. I think that’s true of talk shows: The more you hear, the dumber you get. Think of the poor souls who listen to talk shows while driving around in their cars. How about taxing people who can eat a lot and still stay skinny?
If there’s any justice in the world, we ought to levy a fat tax on those ectomorphs!
We could triple this tax if they said things like, “Oh, I’ve put on so-o-o much weight this summer” while eating a Ted Drewe’s and looking like Mick Jagger’s anemic sibling. How about a tax for people who wear matching clothes? You know, those people who always look like they glanced in a mirror before leaving home?
My attitude has always been to select clothes at random, so I’d be happy to tax those folks wearing coordinated outfits or clothes that go together. I’d tax people who can play musical instruments. I never learned to play the piano or anything, so it seems only just to tax those people who can turn instruments into music. Maybe if the tax were large enough, I wouldn’t have to be jealous at parties when Durb pulls out his accordion or Paul plays his nose-harp. People who, unlike me, are handy around the home should also be taxed.
Since I can’t drive a nail and am all thumbs when I try to do anything, I’d levy the handymen of the world with a thumb tax.
Finally, since we’re taxing all kinds of things and will have all of this extra revenue, why not institute some rebates?
If taxes are going to be used to make people pay for a perk — like a good view or the privilege of washing one’s car — then it seems appropriate to give tax money to engender the behaviors we want.
We could provide rebates to the people who pull to the side of the road when they can see I’m in a hurry.
To the people who arrive later and more dishevelled than I do.
To the people who laugh at my jokes and bring me caloriefree chocolate chip cookies. Karleen, my first wife, would say that we should provide tax rebates to people who give her their used shoes.
She has a shoe collection numbering in the high hundreds, so I can understand why she’d support this.
Many mornings I leave my home to go to work and find an unmarked bag on the porch, containing several pairs of women’s shoes, so lots of folks would benefit from this plan.
Since we’re talking about tax rebates to get the behaviors we want, how about tax rebates to our friends who support The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere (the City’s first neighborhood newspaper)? I should note that I’m being serious now (although you may think that I’ve been doing so all along).
The Times, folks, is in trouble. You’ll soon be solicited somehow, somewhere to help and I hope you’ll give us whatever you can (not counting shoes). Surprisingly, our revenue does not equal our expenses, so we need help.
If you can’t wait to be solicited, send your check to us at 6016 Washington (63112). Remember, if you don’t contribute, I may write about you!
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, September 1987.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1987_09.pdf, printed page(s) 8; PDF page(s) 8.
