A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/31/05 12:19 AM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
This has
nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is
taxed
appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect
the
revenues need to pay the property taxes.
Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding
assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US,
schools
are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many
"free
riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share."
Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the
renters.
The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying
unfairly
low property taxes.
You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by
all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools.
Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is
in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect
of the issue.
No, you don't get it.
The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental
properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that
does not exist.
Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being
unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly
taxed.
You haven't established this, and I still don't see your point. Fortunately,
I don't know that it really matters.
You appear to be deliberately misapprehending the point.
I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't
demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with
funding for schools coming from income tax.
Well, thanks. Finally, consensus.
If you'd just skipped the weird crap about landlords and renters, we could
have cut to this chase many moons ago.
What fun would that be? I enjoy such peregrinations and perambulations off
into the back-roads of philosophy.
I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners."
You don't argue very effectively for not doing so.
I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly.
And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why
do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm
talking about.
You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share.
Sure I have.
Not in this thread.
Well, I do admit that you are unable to admit that I have, probably because
you actually do like sticking it to "rich" landowners and you don't mind a
bit that non-landowners pay far less than their fair share of the burden.
If everybody in
the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law.
Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own
selfish
needs is not what I would call ethics.
That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly
unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility.
Then I'm as ethical as can be.
So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than
shoving those costs off on others!
You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way.
Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car
repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law.
What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility?
Are you going to install spy cameras at the donut shop?
Depends. To prevent burglaries, certainly. To prevent obesity, probably not.
But then again, the reason society eschews donut-cams is because it (ours,
don't know about yours) does place the burden for the consequences of
excessive donut consumption on the donut consumer. If do a Homer, gain 400
pounds and your health fails, why, you deserve everything you get and the
rest of society doesn't have to pay for it.
However, in a socialized medicine culture, it's far more likely that
donut-cams will be use, or that donuts will simply be outlawed entirely,
because the whole premise of such systems is that everyone pays for everyone
else's medical care, so when the individual engages in risky or unhealthful
behavior, it directly impacts government spending on health care. This is a
very strong motivator for socialistic governments to mandate "healthy
lifestyles" through bans, forcible examinations and health-control measures
and other central-planning, communistic control of the individual.
This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is
well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control
and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws.
Or develop extensive
new pre-admittance hospital tests to decide if someone has been eating too
many salted cured meets and evaluate whether this cause their heart
problems? The whole thing is ridiculous.
No, in socialized medicine, it's almost inevitable, provided the whole thing
doesn't crash immediately.
This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No
wonder you feel the need to carry a gun!
You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today.
I'm not the one carrying the gun! LOL.
Which makes you simply stupid. That's not something we can fix with
medication.
Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they
would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be
ridden out of town on a rail!
Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of
money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy
to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that
they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income,
but
in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know
people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable
income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire
consumer
goods industry.
I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an
irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart.
But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically.
Why? You are propsing a tax on all consumer goods which would obviously
affect all producers and sellers of consumer goods, not just Wal-Mart.
True, but I'm talking quite specifically about Wal-Mart, which was the
specific context in which the issue came up.
While other consumer goods companies might object, the depth of their
objection is usually proportional to how big they are and where their
products fall in the "luxury" classification scheme.
Wal-Mart, however, makes it's living by providing "Always low prices" to
cater specifically to those who are under economic pressure and have
limited disposable income. Wal-Mart's business model *depends* on the vast,
unwashed middle-class and the poor, who want "stuff" but can't afford the
high-priced consumer "stuff" the upper crust can afford. What they can
afford is "stuff" that looks something like what the affluent have, but
which costs far, far less because Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut
production costs, often to the point that the supplier ends up bankrupt.
So, the more economic pressure Wal-Mart's customers are under, the better
Wal-Mart likes it, because they have a lock on low-priced consumer goods.
That's why they are the largest, richest company on the planet.
--
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