"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.



That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not in a
401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three times
our net worth because we are lawyer bait. AND we are being taxed to death
without fair representation. I have property in three countys and can only
vote in one countys local election. How do I insure the other two countys
are being run efficently or honest.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Before you step in it, think about your answer.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only
property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.



That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working
all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on
in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not
in a
401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three
times
our net worth because we are lawyer bait. AND we are being taxed to
death
without fair representation. I have property in three countys and can
only
vote in one countys local election. How do I insure the other two
countys
are being run efficently or honest.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services
on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for
vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to
me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is
not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Before you step in it, think about your answer.

Generally speaking, the principle in this country is that you have one
legal residence, and you get to vote where you live...that is, where
your legal residence is located. There's no reason to change that. One
person, one vote.

If you want to vote in a county where you have property but don't live,
I suggest you move there. We have property in Virginia and Florida, but
don't vote in those states.

Why not, you should have representation in those countys where at a min you
have a residence. Having to declare only one home a residence makes things
simple for the federal level but is blatently UNFAIR to you on the local
level.

Renters, by the way, also pay real estate taxes, though indirectly. But
they still pay them.

Yes and they generally live where they rent so it's a non-issue.

Your goal is obvious. You own some vacant land in counties where you do
not live, and you resent the fact that you have to pay for schools, fire
protection and other services there. Tough darts. If you don't like it,
sell your land. Or move onto it.

I'm suprised at you, using the love it or leave it argument.

Harry, my wife and I have a combined income of less than $60K. Out of that
we pay $ 9,000 in local taxes, apx $4,000 in federal taxes (if you include
SS) $6,000 in insurance and $3,000 in health insurance. While Federal taxes
have been going down, local taxes have increased 400% in the last 10 years.
My income has gone up 30% in that same period. The Cost of Living in my
area has increased over the years just slightly higher than my income except
for local taxes, health care and insurance. Of course I'd like to get a
handle on these expenses.

Your argument for imposing a literacy test is specious. Literacy tests
were abolished because those who imposed them misused them to keep
minorities from voting. There's no reason to go back to those days.
Besides, while I think it important to be able to read, in this day of
electronic communications, there are alternatve ways to hear about the
issues and decide what matters.

The test I am proposing just requires the voter to keep the name, possibly
just the letters (DEM) in memory long enough to vote. A pigeon can do that.

The reason we have public education is to insure we have an informed
electorate. Informed means also a sense of HISTORY and the ability to apply
the lessons learned from history to today. The above test requires only
the ability to keep three letters in memory and press a button next to those
letters.

With the above randomizing of the selections it should be harder to commit
voter fraud.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:06:45 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on in
this country.

I'm in the same boat (so to speak) as you. I have recreational
property in Wisconsin overlooking the Mississippi. Paying for
education, what the hell -- I really can't bitch about helping and
besides, the country/small town kids are actually polite...

Couple of points:
1) Federal tax -- All local taxes are a write-off.
2) Sales/use tax -- I have two boats in Wi that I have never paid
sales/use tax on because WI cannot tax non residents and Illinois (my
home state) cannot collect because the boats are not used here.
3) My only complaint -- Wisconsin could give part-time residents a
break on hunting and fishing licenses. Non-resident fees are very
high.

--
Q

"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
snciker obviously harry (and asslicker) have no knowledge of history or
the Constitution.

Sure I do. Historically, Fritz will call someone a little boyish name
whenever he is dead wrong, and can't answer a simple question.

Jeff Rigby wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.



That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not in
a 401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three
times our net worth because we are lawyer bait.

If that is the fault of the gouvernment, go vote for a party that wants to
do something about that. (You can't because your duopoly system makes sure
that both parties are exactly the same and only intend to push the other
party to the extremes.)

AND we are being taxed to death without fair representation.
tax does not equal representation for a long time, and to my knowledge it
never has in the US.

I have property in three countys and can only vote in one countys local
election.
Do I understand you correctly that because you have more property than
average, you claim you should have more representation? What part of 'one
man one vote' don't you understand? (yup, women have votes too)

How do I insure the other two countys are being run efficently or honest.
You can't. you can buy property, but you cannot buy democratic rights.
You can buy all your property in one county. that would 'solve' your
dilemma.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

No, I would propose a law where the county can disown any property not owned
by its residents ;)

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Sure, and i suppose it is their own fault that they can't read properly.
Have you ever tought abouth howcome you have so many functional illiterates
in a country with forced schooling?
Your btw, is a thinly veiled attack on the rights of the poor and
disadvantaged. Considering your wealthy status, I can see why you'd want to
do that. But don't call your country a democracy anymore then, ok?

Before you step in it, think about your answer.

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It just
gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching and
razzia's start.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

Jeff Rigby wrote:

Harry, my wife and I have a combined income of less than $60K. Out of that
we pay $ 9,000 in local taxes, apx $4,000 in federal taxes (if you include
SS) $6,000 in insurance and $3,000 in health insurance.**While*Federal
taxes have been going down, local taxes have increased 400% in the last 10
years. My income has gone up 30% in that same period.**The*Cost*of*Living
in*my area has increased over the years just slightly higher than my
income except for local taxes, health care and insurance. Of course I'd
like to get a handle on these expenses.

so 10 years ago, you had an income of ~$40K and payed $1000 in local taxes =
$39K for other expenses, now you earn $60K and pay 4k in local taxes = $56K
for other expenses. that is an increase of $17K! Are you complaining that
this increase was not enough?
There are plenty of more civilised nations that tax much more then that.
(There are also al lot of other countries that have a more intelligent
president/foreign policy/electoral system, so that is not really an
argument...)

Your argument for imposing a literacy test is specious. Literacy tests
were abolished because those who imposed them misused them to keep
minorities from voting. There's no reason to go back to those days.
Besides, while I think it important to be able to read, in this day of
electronic communications, there are alternatve ways to hear about the
issues and decide what matters.

The test I am proposing just requires the voter to keep the name, possibly
just the letters (DEM) in memory long enough to vote. A pigeon can do
that.

So you think that most american voters that do not share your political self
interest are pigeons?

The reason we have public education is to insure we have an informed
electorate.*Informed*means*also*a*sense*of*HISTORY *and*the*ability*to
apply the lessons learned from history to today.*

That would disqualify your current president. But he promises you less taxes
so you can forgive him, don't you?

The*above*test*requires only the ability to keep three letters in memory
and press a button next to those letters.

With the above randomizing of the selections it should be harder to commit
voter fraud.

*cough*Diebold*cough*
Why bother with voters when you can easily manipulate the votes cast with
no trail showing you did so? Without international observers (that don't
have a vested interest or a political agenda) the coming elections cannot
claim to be 'fair.' Your president opposes those observers, IIRC.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

Harry Krause wrote:

A fine Democrat...... avoid the issue and refuse to address the point.
What point?

That John does not want the people to vote, I think.
What could there be wrong about any party involving more people in the
democratic process if you have a secret ballot?
Anybody is allowed to do that, but John rather implies it is fraud, because
it does not favour his desired outcome.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:09:53 +0200, Jelle
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It just
gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching and
razzia's start.

Troll troll troll rec.boats,
Roughly down the bit stream,
Merrily, merrily, merrily,
You'll soon run out of steam....

Thank you, thank you - I'll be here all week - try the salad.

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:09:53 +0200, Jelle
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It
just gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching
and razzia's start.

Troll troll troll rec.boats,
Roughly down the bit stream,
Merrily, merrily, merrily,
You'll soon run out of steam....

Thank you thank you.
the secon and forth strofe need some work, but a nice gest indeed.

I am having a great time and i don't even have to resort to adequacy style
trolling. These simple folks bite on everything!

Thank you, thank you - I'll be here all week - try the salad.

nah greenies is for women.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

"Q" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:06:45 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working
all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on
in
this country.

I'm in the same boat (so to speak) as you. I have recreational
property in Wisconsin overlooking the Mississippi. Paying for
education, what the hell -- I really can't bitch about helping and
besides, the country/small town kids are actually polite...

Couple of points:
1) Federal tax -- All local taxes are a write-off.

I thought the test was "If you don't get some service (value) for the money"
it's deductible. It becomes a sticky point to prove you didn't get any
services for the taxes spent.

Anyway, the write-off doesn't happen with vacant land until you sell it. In
the mean time, as an investment it's killing you to pay the $2,200 in taxes
on a 75X90 foot vacant lot every year.

My Grandfather had the opportunity (it became a Folk Tale in my family) to
purchase several acres of land on Longboat Key here in Sarasota for several
thousand dollars in the early 50's. At the time my Grandfather said, "Who
would want to buy a Flea infested strip of beach sand with no access
(road)". Today it's worth 20 million. When you think it thru, he would
have been forced to sell it in the 60's for $100k as he could not afford the
taxes for the additional 10 years to realize a million or the taxes for 40
years to realize 20 million. Taxes keep the poor poor and the rich richer.