Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do. That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.
Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do. I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics. The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that
there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in
an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a
per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden
on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do.

Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient,
ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig." Most of them are far more
concerned about the education of children than you are. They simply realize
that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded
stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of
childhood education.

I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics.

Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist,
to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice?

Could it be that you overestimate your understanding?

The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Socialist twaddle.


Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet
with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics.

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/26/05 2:54 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that
there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in
an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a
per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden
on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially
free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do.

Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient,
ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig."

Demanding less wasteful, more efficient, and more effective public schools -
and getting off your ass and contributing to that - is different from
whining about it and wanting them shut down so you can keep more of your own
money.

Most of them are far more
concerned about the education of children than you are.

Oh dear, you aren't making a judgement about me are you? How do you know
what my level of concern is?

They simply realize
that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded
stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of
childhood education.

It will result in education for the wealthy. There is no free market
incentive to provide education to the poor.

I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics.

Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist,
to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice?

Could it be that you overestimate your understanding?

Free market economics is quite simple.

It also doesn't exist anywhere.

The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Socialist twaddle.

There's no profit in educating people who can't afford to pay.

Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet
with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics.

How do you define free market economics Scotty?

What is it you see in your definition that leads you to believe that private
sector educational insitutions will be motivated to educate the poor in a
free market economy?

Scotty asserts:
================
Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the
property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income
from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system.
==================

Perhaps that's how property tax is calculated in CO. In BC, your
millrate is a function of your property's assessed MARKET VALUE.
(Acreage is thus irrelevant)

So, for a multi-unit apartment building, the market value will
presumably be quite high, and thus the tenants do carry a tax burden.

frtzw906
=================

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scotty asserts:
================
Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the
property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income
from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system.
==================

Perhaps that's how property tax is calculated in CO. In BC, your
millrate is a function of your property's assessed MARKET VALUE.
(Acreage is thus irrelevant)

So, for a multi-unit apartment building, the market value will
presumably be quite high, and thus the tenants do carry a tax burden.

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.

--
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

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