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.

KMAN:
===============
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.
=================

Brilliant, Holmes! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Watson

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN:
===============
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.
=================

Brilliant, Holmes! I couldn't have said it better myself.

What happened to your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain" zeal?

Or do you just like the idea of sticking it to landowners because they are
somehow immoral for presuming to own something you can't afford?

That's not very consistent.
--
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:
=============
What happened to your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain" zeal?

Or do you just like the idea of sticking it to landowners because they
are
somehow immoral for presuming to own something you can't afford?

That's not very consistent.
===============

Who said anything about "sticking it to the landowners"? As KMAN
pointed out, the landlord is taxed, and we can rest assured he'll
approtion his tax bill to all his tenants so they'll "share" the tax
burden.

As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education,
I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is funded,
but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct way
to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!).

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=============
What happened to your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain" zeal?

Or do you just like the idea of sticking it to landowners because they
are
somehow immoral for presuming to own something you can't afford?

That's not very consistent.
===============

Who said anything about "sticking it to the landowners"? As KMAN
pointed out, the landlord is taxed, and we can rest assured he'll
approtion his tax bill to all his tenants so they'll "share" the tax
burden.

Not equally. If landlord A pays Y in property taxes, and has 100 tenants,
each tenant will pay Y/100 towards public schools. Now, if property owner B
pays 1/2Y on his private residence, where he has no tenants and generates no
income, he is paying 50 times more than each of the tenants of A. How is it
fair that each of the 100 tenants of A get to pay 1/50th of what B pays for
public schools?


As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education,
I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is funded,
but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct way
to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!).

That's all I'm saying.

--
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:
============
As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education,
I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is
funded,
but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct
way
to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!).

That's all I'm saying.
=================

And I've never said otherwise, except to disspell the notion that
tenants pay "no" tax toward schools. Property taxes are in more than a
few ways, very "odd" taxes. For example, here, where they're based on
assessed market value, they penalize those who take care of and
maintain their property. And, as you say Scott, they are a poor
reflection of actual usage of the services they're supposed to pay for
(sewage, water, garbage collection, or whatever). For many of these
things, I'm over on your side Scott. Put a meter on my water (which my
municipality is doing this summer), charge me per garbage can, etc. On
these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if you'll
recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to
support). [Aside: all bets are off if the city tries to sell the water
reservoirs and distribution rights to private, for-profit, firms --
water belongs to the PEOPLE.]

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
============
As to property taxes being an appropriate means of funding education,
I've never said that. That happens to be the way much of it is
funded,
but I'll agree with you, that doesn't make it right or the correct
way
to do it. Income tax works for me just as well (better!).

That's all I'm saying.
=================

And I've never said otherwise, except to disspell the notion that
tenants pay "no" tax toward schools. Property taxes are in more than a
few ways, very "odd" taxes. For example, here, where they're based on
assessed market value, they penalize those who take care of and
maintain their property. And, as you say Scott, they are a poor
reflection of actual usage of the services they're supposed to pay for
(sewage, water, garbage collection, or whatever). For many of these
things, I'm over on your side Scott. Put a meter on my water (which my
municipality is doing this summer), charge me per garbage can, etc. On
these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if you'll
recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to
support).

Why not for health care and schools too?

[Aside: all bets are off if the city tries to sell the water
reservoirs and distribution rights to private, for-profit, firms --
water belongs to the PEOPLE.]

Well, down here, water belongs to whomever first diverts it and puts it to
beneficial use. Which is why, BTW, Colorado doesn't have any navigable
waterways for you to kayak on. (Just thought I'd bring the discussion back
to paddling for a moment.)
--
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

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.

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.

Take that money and dole it out to the STUDENT (not the school district), to
be used to pay for private schooling, and you have a much better, more
effective, efficient and financially sound school system.
--
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 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.

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?

Take that money and dole it out to the STUDENT (not the school district),
to
be used to pay for private schooling, and you have a much better, more
effective, efficient and financially sound school system.
--
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

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