A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , BCITORGB
at
wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM:
Scott:
==============
Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in
both
use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while
the
mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every
five
years. There is no direct link between the income the property
generates
from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the
renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes
===============
Semantics.
frtzw906
It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are
property
owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents
they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of
revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't
paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not
paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or
responsibility
of the renters.
It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed
and
collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be
paying
more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the
renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an
obligation to support the schools as the property owner.
Not at all.
Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of
story.
Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want
everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you
want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education. Why
is that?
That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for
children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs
are
paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and
thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's
nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich
consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming.
So are you only taxing luxury goods?
"Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in
that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation,
pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as
food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike
necessities.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser