An Increase in Property Value isn't always Beneficial for the Home Owner.

I thank Con for his previous round, however, I spotted several fundamental flaws in Con's approach. My response to Con's opening claimsThe first thing I immediately noticed was that Con is attempted to "shift the goalposts" [1] in regards to his Burden of Proof in this debate. This is a logical fallacy and one that is apparent in Con's opening claim that "there are a considerable number of beneficial outcomes..." Con follows this claim by listing several benefits that can come from an increase in property value for homeowners. However, even Con is aware of the shortcomings of his list which is evident in his own admission immediately following the list which stated, "That being said, the above are not really in question for the purposes of this debate." He is correct in that statement because ultimately it doesn't matter if there are numerous benefits. In this debate Con needs to show that it is *always* beneficial for the homeowner, not just that there are "numerous benefits". Con further makes his shifting of the goalposts apparent by then stating that, "What is in question is if the ultimate outcome of a rise in property value negates the benefit that is derived from it." This is not what is in question Con. Using language such as "the ultimate outcome" once more implies that this is an "on balance" debate, when in reality it isn't. Con then confirms my suspicions of his misguided approach by saying that:"To this end I will be concentrating on potential unfavourable outcomes and demonstrating that these outcomes do not outweigh the combined benefits derived by rises in property values and indirect benefits received by home owners from some of these outcomes."Con literally uses the term "outweigh" which is only something necessary in debates that are "on balance" in nature. I'm now led to believe one of two possibilities: either A) Con is intentionally trying to lessen his burden by shifting the goalposts, or B) Con fails to understand that weighing the benefits to the negatives will do nothing to maintain his BOP, which is to show that an increase in property tax is *always* beneficial to the homeowner. I hope that it is the latter, because if Con is intentionally committing a logical fallacy, then this is nothing more than a display of poor conduct. With this error of his now brought to light, I will move on to my rebuttals of his arguments. **While I fully understand that all of his arguments are based on an "on balance" approach, to which I've responded to above, I will rebut them nonetheless in an effort to show why each fails to uphold his Burden within this debate.** RebuttalsI. " Taxes on capital as a rule are not regressive and tend to be lower than income taxes."This argument fundamentally fails to uphold his burden as it includes key terms such as "often not taxed", as long as there are *some* homeowners being taxed on the increase of property value that leads to a negative outcome, my case still stands. Furthermore, Con ends this argument by claiming that "a rise in the value of a home owner's property will on the whole be free of tax, or at a much lower rate..." but his source solely deals with people selling there home. It states nothing regarding the rise of taxes that come with an increase in property value for home owners. The opening statement of his source says: "If you sold your main home and made a profit, you may be able to exclude that profit from your taxable income." [2]It's clear that the article has nothing to do with his claim. Nor does it touch the key issue within this debate which regards current home owners and the outcome of an increase in property value. People who might be able to save money on the taxes that follow the profits from the sale of their home is completely unrelated due to the fact that people who sell their homes aren't the ones who this debate focuses on - which are current home owners. II. "Local Council Rates (Taxes) are relative."This argument actually serves to benefit my end rather than Con's. The key point in this line of argumentation was Con's statement that: "Through this revaluation process it ensures that the eighty year old that bought their property sixty years ago for $5,000 is not paying disproportionately less rates than the new home owner that has built or bought their new home for $300,000 in the current year."This is exactly why it is detrimental to the 80 year old, for the fact that "it ensures that he isn't paying disproportionately less rates than the new home owner that built or bought their new home for $300,000." The fact that people moved onto the surrounding land and caused his property value to skyrocket with their new homes which then brought with it an increase in property taxes, causing him to abandon his home of 60 years, is ultimately a negative for him. Hence, an increase in property value isn't *always* beneficial for the home owner. III. "Homeowners still benefit from payment of taxes."This is an odd argument, as Con is arguing that the increase in taxes is justified by the services it provides. However, if we are to accurately compare the pro's and con's of taxes to the services they provide, then we can't only weigh the increase in taxes against those services as a whole, but rather, we need to weigh the entire amount of taxes as a whole to the services as a whole. To be clear, if Con wishes to truly follow this line of argumentation, then he needs to weigh the services against the entire amount of taxes, not just the increase. Furthermore, if we are continuing the example of the old hermit, I'm pretty sure he was doing just fine without whatever services the new surrounding community brings along with it, considering that he was able to live out there before they arrived. So, Con now has two different challenges to overcome within this line of argumentation in regards to his attempt at justification. IV. "Financial risks can be managed."Once more, Con's argument serves to actually damage his chances at maintaining his Burden of Proof. In this line of argumentation Con's key point was:"So there is absolutely no question that increases in the value of homes has a knock on financial effect in other areas of a home owner"s cash flow and balance sheet. These downstream effects though in no way fully negate the benefit of increases in home values and only serve to slightly reduce the net benefit enjoyed by home owners."Needless to say, Con has, himself, shown that an increase in the value of homes is not always a benefit for the home owner. Con then goes on to say that these effects "in no way fully negate the benefit...", however, it doesn't need to "fully negate" to defeat your position but rather already defeats your burden by even having the *possibility* of negating the benefit.Clearly, Con has presented yet another argument which serves to strengthen my position rather than his. In closing, I have now rebutted each argument raised by Con, as well as responded to his opening claims which were nothing more than Con committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the goalposts. As it stands, my argument remains unchallenged, and each of Con's arguments have fallen short of fulfilling his full burden within this debate. I would also like to point out that while his sources supported his claims, his claims, in no way, supported his burden. Thus, they are moot. Sources[1] http://rationalwiki.org...[2] http://taxes.about.com...