| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Threaded Mode
