(are the deferred and payable portions directly proportional to the values of the relinquished and replacement properties?)

you know because we all keep costs in mind. title seems, in terms of importance, from all that we've heard is #1. so just weighing the costs...it can get added on quickly. for a bigger property a property that costs a lot more, proportionally it could probably be added on, for smaller properties those costs causes to think more about them...

I am actually for the taxes going up 50-100% from where they are now and increasing benefits proportionally. 

Just apply my example in whatever proportion the refi funds were used. 

In my opinion, if he wants a profit split, it has to be proportional to his investment.

I don't know what a "TON" is, but I suspect she is blowing this out of proportion since I didn't see any issues when I inspected.I would just like some advice on how I should respond and/or handle this.

Oddly, it seems that people desire for pets is inversely proportional to the amount of income they have. 

Also consider the value of the timber removed and its proportion to the value of the land and also the asthetic consequences of harvesting.  

After all, I'd expect the localities with the highest property tax to have lower P/R ratios to compensate.I wrote out a rough equation for the %CoCR based off the 50% rule:%CoCR = (50% * Price / (P/R) - Excess Property Tax - Mortgage Payment) / (Price * % Down)Simplifying,%CoCR = (50% * P/R - %Excess Property Tax - %Mortgage Payment) / (%Down)Since %Down and %Mortgage Payment are going to be basically constant assuming I can get a conforming mortgage, it can be simplified further:%CoCR is proportional to P/R - 2 * %Excess Property TaxI called this quantity "Adjusted P/R".

Also at 75% the sticky typing box is at a much better proportion to the screen.