"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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?

Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin
he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax
paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are
paying through their rent.



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.

I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't
in your luxury class.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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?

Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin
he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax
paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are
paying through their rent.

Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying
an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are
not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than
landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon
which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the
renter as well.

I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.





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.

I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea,

Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like
you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy. If everybody in
the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law.

and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.




--
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 3/30/05 1:25 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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?

Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin
he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax
paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are
paying through their rent.

Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying
an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are
not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than
landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon
which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the
renter as well.

Your beef would seem to be with how properties are assessed. 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.

I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

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.

I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea,

Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like
you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy.

I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners."

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.

and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin
he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax
paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are
paying through their rent.

Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is paying
an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters are
not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than
landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon
which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the
renter as well.

Your beef would seem to be with how properties are assessed.

In part.

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."


I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

"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.

I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea,

Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they, like
you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy.

I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners."

You don't argue very effectively for not doing so.


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.


and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a
Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and
lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't
have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods.

"If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of Wal-Mart...because
they do.
--
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:



Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit
margin
he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the
property tax
paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants
are
paying through their rent.

Profit margin is not the point. The point is whether each citizen is
paying
an equal share of the funding required for schools. Fact is that renters
are
not paying an equal share, they are paying far less per capita than
landowners, which happens to include people who own homes and land upon
which NO profit is made. Thus, the single home owner pays more than the
renter as well.

Your beef would seem to be with how properties are assessed.

In part.

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.


I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care
and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools,
and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who
are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to
bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and
universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a
goal they are striving to achieve.

"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.

I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea,

Probably not, since the majority of people are not landowners and they,
like
you, are happy to stick it to landowners out of jealousy.

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.

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.

and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible
aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

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!

This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a
Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and
lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't
have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods.

"If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of
Wal-Mart...because
they do.

Ehuh. Wow, that's a brilliant catchphrase.

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.



I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care
and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools,
and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who
are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to
bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and
universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a
goal they are striving to achieve.

But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear
to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the
case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone
pay their fair share?


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.


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!


and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible
aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

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.


This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a
Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and
lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't
have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods.

"If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of
Wal-Mart...because
they do.

Ehuh. Wow, that's a brilliant catchphrase.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

--
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 3/30/05 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.

I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care
and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools,
and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who
are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to
bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and
universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a
goal they are striving to achieve.

But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear
to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the
case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone
pay their fair share?

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.

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.


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. I can believe in personal
responsibility without casting poor people to the wolves or instituting
daily blood testing of the population to ensure compliance with a
state-approved menu. This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No
wonder you feel the need to carry a gun!

and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible
aren't
in your luxury class.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

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.

This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a
Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and
lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't
have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods.

"If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of
Wal-Mart...because
they do.

Ehuh. Wow, that's a brilliant catchphrase.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

In that is says nothing, yes.