No. An individuals political voice should not be devalued based upon what kind of property taxes they pay. Provided that a person is of legal age, has legal citizenship, and not a felon... they should be able to vote.
Liberal voters are pushing to destroy the property rights of the minority of Americans who pay income taxes by forcing them to pay even more.
Luckily fewer people call themselves "liberal" than call themselves "conservative" and luckily politicians know that if you squeeze the rich too much, they'll just go somewhere else, taking their tax dollars and their campaign donations with them.
I thought the idea of property qualifications was dropped BEFORE the idea of women voters was adopted? Just how far back in time do we want to go?
No. I find it inconvenient that so many folks who demonstrate no personal responsibility and pay nothing for the privileges that income tax provides, get to vote on how we spend our collected dollars. But I would not deny them a vote at the federal or state level. All citizens receive equal rights and privileges of citizenship, all are equally responsible for the choices we make together. If we disenfranchise the large group of American's that do not own homes, if we remove their vote, we tell them they are no longer responsible for the state of the country. They become second class citizens and effectively wards of the state. This would provide an excuse for not contributing and it would give them cause to blame those who did have a vote for the condition of the country. I'm not willing to let them off the hook that easy.
Nope. I pay taxes and I live in an apartment. I have no interest in owning a home. I guess the concept of tax payers in apartments escapes some.
C-Ya ... don't forget to write ... The President will make changes either soon or after his win in November.
I do not think income taxation should exist. But most people would support idiotic forced car insurance for instance, because they're too AFRAID of accidents, that they want to create the ILLUSION of a safety net that I don't want, but that I have to pay for. Theft. Just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pure thuggery. That's why I don't buy into "majority rules".
As I pointed out, how is the landlord not acting as a tax collection agent just as the merchant does when he collects sales taxes?
By that logic, the person's employer actually pays the property taxes, the resident just acts as a tax collector for him.
Oh, and to actually answer your question: When you pay a merchant, a portion of your money is specified as taxes. The merchant has no choice on how to use that money and will not have to pay those sales taxes if you don't pay him. The buyer is obligated to pay the taxes, not the merchant, and in some rare cases the merchant doesn't even have to collect the tax - the buyer is obligated to report those sales and pay the tax himself. When you pay your rent, no money is designated - the landlord may spend that money as he pleases. He has to pay the property taxes whether or not you rent from him and he has to pay even if your rent doesn't cover the cost of the property taxes. The landlord is obligated to pay the taxes, not the renter. So it comes down to designation and obligation. The person obligated to pay the taxes in spite of the other is the one who truly pays the taxes.
Because you need a license to collect sales tax, the process of collecting sales tax is regulated by government agencies, the business is required to provide a receipt for the sales tax, and the taxes collected are deductible from revenue in calculating the businesses income. The landlord is not licensed to act as an agent, there is no oversight by a tax enforcement agency of his collecting taxes, he provides no receipt for tax payment, and all of the funds he collects are considered revenue -- upon which he pays real taxes.
Let's use the terms "landlord" and "property owner" interchangeably for now, okay? The landlord has to pay taxes on the property, regardless of whether or not the apartment/condominium/house is rented. Let's use a landlord with one house for rent as an example -- The landlord calculates how much $$ they need as rent to cover the note to the bank on the house (assuming there is one), the costs of property insurance, the costs of routine maintenance, and the property taxes on the house, plus a profit. The tenant pays one fee monthly (rent) to the landlord that covers the landlord's costs. Even though the tenant is technically paying the tax bill on the property for the landlord, the tenant can not claim this as a deductible expense on his/her income taxes at the end of the year - unlike any sales taxes s/he paid a merchant. When you bought the computer you're using - presuming you bought it from a retailer - the retailer acts as a collection agent for the state/city and forwards the money to them on a quarterly basis. The landlord is not under that same obligation, because they aren't selling you anything. It's strange how that works though. An apartment is about the only thing I can think of that the user thereof doesn't directly pay a tax on.
Do you? If you're "The Curmudgeon Company", and you own and operate a 300+ apartment complex you do, but what about if it's just you? Grandma passes away, you inherit her house and decide to rent it out. Do you need a business license? Honestly, I don't know. I'd imagine that there's some sort of statutory "dividing line" - once a person generates more than "X" amount of $$ in rental income they do, but I don't know where that line is.
Au contraire, mon ami! Delaware doesn't have a sales tax, but Delaware does impose a gross receipts tax on most businesses. You are paying a tax, but it's hidden in the price of the item(s) that you purchase. And because of that, you cannot claim that "hidden tax" on your income tax return. When you go to your dentist or physician, does s/he charge you a specific sales tax? Most probably not, because it's hidden in the rate they charge. That same principle applies to the sales tax on rental property - there is a tax being imposed, but it's a "hidden tax" that the end user doesn't get to claim as a deduction.
Definitely not. Next you'll be proposing those of a certain income or above will only be able to vote.
