"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "George"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...

That, or simply dump property tax altogether. Of all the different types
of
taxes we're hit for, property tax *alone* bears no relationship whatever
to
the taxpayer's ability to pay

THAT makes sense to you? I thought it was to pay for government services,
though I don't see the folks on municipal water helping when my pump goes
on
the fritz, while I subsidize them.

The point is that it's hardly fair to assess a tax on someone who lacks
the
ability to pay it.

Marx would be proud.

Dave Hall wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:08:00 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon
wrote:

Puckdropper wrote:

Kevin M. Vernon wrote in
:

*snip*

Personally, My thoughts on the whole property tax mess a Your
tax rate is based upon your purchase price. When you sell the
property the new owner then pays his taxes based upon the price
HE
paid for it.

-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........

The problem with that is I'd happily buy my sister's house for $1
and she'd buy mine for the same $1. A couple hundred in title
fees, and my property tax is just a few cents. Good for me, bad
for government.

Puckdropper


Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.

In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
not taxes.

If one person can think to do that then everyone can and pretty soon
book values will be nothing and the tax rate will have to be raised to
thousands of times the last selling price if the government is to have
the desired income.

After all - giving money & power to govenment is like giving
whiskey
& car keys to 17 year olds.

-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dave Hall wrote:

snippage


Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.

In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
not taxes.

The BEST way to force the CongressCritters to control spending, is to
reduce...nay, DRASTICALLY reduce their revenue stream.

Tax imports...and consumption. NOT income & property.

-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , Dave Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.

And a lot don't, too.

I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack for
you...

For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the child
raising stage of life.


Just being old should
not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
has decided to spend society's money.

Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.

This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
point on this one...

"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in the
previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.


--

-Mike-

Tom Veatch wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:17:15 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
not taxes


I agree the spending should be addressed. But, assume the spending is
cut in half and you're still facing the problem of how to equitably
spread the tax load to support that reduced level of spending.


Define "equitable".

Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable, or
more convenient for you - at this point in your life.

--

-Mike-

Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:

snippage


Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping
money
OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.

In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about
spending,
not taxes.

The BEST way to force the CongressCritters to control spending, is
to
reduce...nay, DRASTICALLY reduce their revenue stream.

Tax imports...and consumption. NOT income & property.

Which doesn't address the problem. The only way that government
spending will ever be brought under control is to separate the power
to tax and borrow from the power to spend. As long as the same people
control both they'll spend taxpayer money to buy votes until they've
bled the public dry.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Define "equitable".

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equitable


Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable, or
more convenient for you - at this point in your life.

See above.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Define "equitable".

Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable, or
more convenient for you - at this point in your life.

--

-Mike-


Mike, in case you missed it, the point was that dealing with the
spending side of the equation does not solve any problems associated
with the collecting side of the equation. Unless, of course, the
spending is reduced to zero.

If government spends X amount of money, cutting the expenditure to 1/2
X, 1/4 X, 1/100000 X doesn't address any problems associated with
collecting those funds, however much the total may be.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Tom Veatch wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:05:51 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Define "equitable".

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equitable


Now distinguish between "equitable" and that which is merely comfortable,
or
more convenient for you - at this point in your life.

See above.

The reason that I asked what your definition was Tom, is that the dictionary
definition as pointed to by you, does not match your application of that
term in my opinion.

--

-Mike-

Tom Veatch wrote in message
news
Mike, in case you missed it, the point was that dealing with the
spending side of the equation does not solve any problems associated
with the collecting side of the equation. Unless, of course, the
spending is reduced to zero.

If government spends X amount of money, cutting the expenditure to 1/2
X, 1/4 X, 1/100000 X doesn't address any problems associated with
collecting those funds, however much the total may be.


In fairness Tom, there are probably points that I did indeed miss, as I
joined this thread late in its life. Sorry if anything I throw out may be
already covered.

I agree with your point in the second paragraph above, but that by itself is
somewhat disassociated with how either of us use the term "equitable", or
like discussions on the merit of the current property tax formula.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , Dave Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
.... snip

Just being old should
not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
has decided to spend society's money.

Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.

This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
point on this one...

"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in
the
previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.



Thank-you for that very cogent and absolutely spot-on assessment. This
attitude and idea that it is "society's" money is quite frightening as it
implies a certain entitlement mindset; i.e, there is a certain amount of a
country's wealth and prosperity that should be used as some ruling entity
determines vs. the idea that a society and country requires a certain level
of government activity to allow private endeavors to prosper but that
amount should be the absolute minimum required to allow government to
perform its most basic functions.

Evidence of this is apparent in such things as one of Hillary's recent
speeches were, when speaking about oil companies' profits she made the
comment, "When I'm president, I'm going to take those profits and use them
to fund health care, .... " That is an entitlement mindset, seeking to
reap from the work of others and use it to buy a dependency class votes



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:38:38 -0500, Kevin M. Vernon
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

snippage


Why bad for Government? To me, anything that aids in keeping money
OUT of the hands of Government is a GOOD thing.

In what way did this process keep money out of Gov't's hands? They
just raise the tax rate until they get the same total amount. You
won't be paying your share so, by definition, you will have screwed
someone else into paying your share. We need to talk about spending,
not taxes.

The BEST way to force the CongressCritters to control spending, is to
reduce...nay, DRASTICALLY reduce their revenue stream.

Tax imports...and consumption. NOT income & property.

-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
However, the thread is about property taxes and, as far as I know,
congress does not hit us up with property taxes.

Dave Hall

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:26:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


In fairness Tom, there are probably points that I did indeed miss, as I
joined this thread late in its life. Sorry if anything I throw out may be
already covered.

I agree with your point in the second paragraph above, but that by itself is
somewhat disassociated with how either of us use the term "equitable", or
like discussions on the merit of the current property tax formula.

To be honest, Mike, I'm not sure that there is any taxation scheme
that is "equitable", that is, fair and balanced across the entire
population, or by any other objective definition. Certainly not from
the perception of the person who has to fork over the money.

As a first thought, and presented simply as a jumping off point for
discussion, the concept of "user fee" seems to approach most closely
my idea of "fair and equitable" taxation. Those who use the service
should be the ones who pay the cost of the service. If I go into a
doughnut shop and get a doughnut, I'm the one who pays, not the person
who happens to be walking along the sidewalk outside the shop. Why
should government services be different?

Of course that leaves open the big question of "Who is the user?". Is
the criminal the "user" of the police service, or is the general
population that is protected (debatable) from the criminal the "user"?
Is the person whose property is ablaze the "user" of the Fire
Department, or is the neighbor whose property is endangered by the
fire the "user"?

I believe any general fund taxation based solely on the value of a
property, whether that property be "real property" or an income stream
is "inequitable" since it focuses on an assumed "ability to pay"
rather than focusing on what generates the cost and applying the tax
burden to those cost generators. An ad valorem property tax might be
appropriate for support of Fire Departments since the risk to the
owner (assumed use of the system) can be considered to be in direct
proportion to the value of the property. Ad valorem taxation for the
support of "Parks and Recreation" is inequitable since there is no
correlation between the value of a person's property and their use of
the service.

In my opinion, the tax on highway fuels is one tax that approaches an
"equitable" classification. Ignoring the efficiency of government in
applying those funds, this is a case of the user of the service (the
highway system) is the one who pays the bill. If you don't drive on
the highway, you don't pay the "highway tax" - at least not directly.
Commercial transportation firms include the taxes they pay in the
tariff they charge their customer who pays the bill as the beneficiary
of and "end user" of the highway/transportation system.

No matter how the payment pie is sliced, someone is going to be the
one whose ox is gored. But, I guess what annoys me the most, and has
been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, are those professional
politicians who feel my pocketbook is an appropriate source of funds
for them to use to buy re-election.



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , Dave Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.

And a lot don't, too.

I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack for
you...

For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the child
raising stage of life.


Just being old should
not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
has decided to spend society's money.

Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.

This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
point on this one...

"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in the
previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.

Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
because you are old you should automatically pay LESS. Being old does
not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes. Being
poor, at any age, may be such a reason.

I also did not imply that all money belong's to society. However,
society does (via its laws and people's votes) decide how they want to
spend money. They (really meaning us as a society) then must get that
money from us citizens. Instead of us always focusing on how "they"
are going to get that money from us, maybe we should focus on why "we"
are spending so much of it. To debate how to raise the money is simply
an excercise in trying to make the other guy pay for the stuff that we
all (via our freely elected government) seem to want government to buy
for us. By the way, my house is paid for, my kids are grown and out of
college, my grandsons are a joy that I wish we weren't saddling with
all of our deficit spending, and I am still working and paying taxes
(federal, state, county, municipal and school).

Dave Hall

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , Dave Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.

And a lot don't, too.

I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack
for
you...

For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the
child
raising stage of life.


Just being old should
not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
has decided to spend society's money.

Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.

This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
point on this one...

"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in
the
previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.

Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
because you are old you should automatically pay LESS. Being old does
not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes. Being
poor, at any age, may be such a reason.

No - you said that a large percentage have a greater ability to pay ("but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better ability
to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car payments, kids to
raise and colleges to pay for"). I disagreed with this broad
generalization. Being old is not what resulted in a lower property tax
payment as was I believe, the point at hand. It is not a matter of paying
less because of age.




I also did not imply that all money belong's to society. However,
society does (via its laws and people's votes) decide how they want to
spend money.

And societies get out of hand with their desires and expectations too.
Simply because society (really, a portion of that society) may have a whim,
does not justify that whim.

They (really meaning us as a society) then must get that
money from us citizens.

Society is the citizenry. The problem really stems from the fact that
society does not make these decisions. Special interests makes these
decisions. School Boards decide upon what you'll pay in school taxes (the
fox guarding the hen house), politicians empowered to spend your money
decide on how much money you'll pay in taxes (that fox again), etc.

Instead of us always focusing on how "they"
are going to get that money from us, maybe we should focus on why "we"
are spending so much of it.

Agreed - but that is different from the initial statement that I responded
to.

To debate how to raise the money is simply
an excercise in trying to make the other guy pay for the stuff that we
all (via our freely elected government) seem to want government to buy
for us.

There is no real association between what "we all want" and an elected
government.

By the way, my house is paid for, my kids are grown and out of
college, my grandsons are a joy that I wish we weren't saddling with
all of our deficit spending, and I am still working and paying taxes
(federal, state, county, municipal and school).


You old fart...


--

-Mike-

In article , Dave Hall wrote:

But the whole discussion has been about people considering tax
structures that end up with them paying less taxes. By definition they
are then talking about how to make other people pay more in taxes.

Wrong.

You fail to consider the alternative: talking about reducing government
spending so that *everybody* pays less in taxes.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Dave Hall wrote:

Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
because you are old you should automatically pay LESS.

Nobody said that.

Being old does
not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes.

Nobody said that, either.

Being
poor, at any age, may be such a reason.

I also did not imply that all money belong's to society.

The phrase "society's money" does indeed imply just that. Neither "society"
nor government has any money of its own. It's my money, your money, his money
-- our money as *individuals*. Whatever the government has, it has only
because it took it from us as individuals.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:52:04 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article , Dave Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:33:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

I have no problem with some kind of ability to pay measure, but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better
ability to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car
payments, kids to raise and colleges to pay for.

And a lot don't, too.

I am disappointed in this response Doug. I'll take up some of the slack
for
you...

For those of us who have finally gotten out from underneath our mortgages,
many are still under the burden of those college educations we contributed
to, still have car payments, now (or soon will have) have grand children
that we contribute to, pay for weddings, and lots of other costs that the
previous poster cannot yet see. In short, the previous poster is not well
informed with respect to the costs associated with moving on past the
child
raising stage of life.


Just being old should
not exempt someone from supporting society to the extent that society
has decided to spend society's money.

Agreed -- but IMO being too poor should.

This is the one that you really let me down on Doug. Again - I'll take
point on this one...

"has decided to spend society's money"????? Therein lies the problem in
the
previous poster's perspective. Society has no money of its own. It taxes
people to raise money. Translation - it spends the money that belongs to
people. It decides how to spend other people's money. It's an attitude
like this that is so damned annoying. Folks run around thinking that
because they want something, or think they need it, they have the right to
impose upon the finances of those around them in the name of society, and
then justify that by such empty arguments as were stated above, that other
(older, richer, etc.) people don't need their money as much as the greedy
ones need to get it from them, for their own desires.

Wow! I don't know how you managed to so thoroughly misinterprete what
I was saying. I certainly did not say that retired folks have an
ability to pay MORE than others, I was refuting the concept that just
because you are old you should automatically pay LESS. Being old does
not make one poor and should not be an exemption from taxes. Being
poor, at any age, may be such a reason.

No - you said that a large percentage have a greater ability to pay ("but in
reality a very large percentage of "senior citizens" have a better ability
to pay than middle aged people who have mortgages, car payments, kids to
raise and colleges to pay for"). I disagreed with this broad
generalization. Being old is not what resulted in a lower property tax
payment as was I believe, the point at hand. It is not a matter of paying
less because of age.

In many areas there is indeed a specific exemption in property taxes
for those over a certain age, regardless of wealth, income or any
other measurement of "ability" to pay. This exemtion was addressed in
this thread, I believe, in the message that I was directly responding
to when I first posted. My point was and still is that if you own a
$100,000 house and are age 65 and earn $75,000 a year (including
pensions, investment income, social security and any wages) and I own
a $100,000 house and am age 50 with a total income of $75,000
(including all sources as above) and we both live in the same
community, I do not see why you should pay a lower property tax than I
simply due to the age difference. In most cases the generalization
made in support of passing these blanket exemptions is that the "poor
retiiree" is living on a "fixed income". In reality it is because a
much higher percentage of people over 65 vote than those of a younger
age (shame on those youngsters). They are in fact a "special interest"
such as those that you take umbrage to later on in your response. My
statement was that older folks are often painted as being unable to
shoulder the burden (a painting they often brush oin themselves) when
in fact many are at least as able to shoulder the burden as those
folks of somewhat lesser years with similar total incomes. I stick by
that assertion in the context presented. I do not assert that because
a younger family person has family cost responsibilities that they
should get any tax reduction, just that they should not be penalized.



I also did not imply that all money belong's to society. However,
society does (via its laws and people's votes) decide how they want to
spend money.

And societies get out of hand with their desires and expectations too.
Simply because society (really, a portion of that society) may have a whim,
does not justify that whim.

We all vote for the folks that have the authority to act or choose
not to act on that whim.

They (really meaning us as a society) then must get that
money from us citizens.

Society is the citizenry. The problem really stems from the fact that
society does not make these decisions. Special interests makes these
decisions. School Boards decide upon what you'll pay in school taxes (the
fox guarding the hen house),

Who elected them???

politicians empowered to spend your money
decide on how much money you'll pay in taxes (that fox again), etc.

Who elected them????

Instead of us always focusing on how "they"
are going to get that money from us, maybe we should focus on why "we"
are spending so much of it.

Agreed - but that is different from the initial statement that I responded
to.

To debate how to raise the money is simply
an excercise in trying to make the other guy pay for the stuff that we
all (via our freely elected government) seem to want government to buy
for us.

There is no real association between what "we all want" and an elected
government.

Who elected them??? They did not get into power by some birthright,
"society" chose these leaders. "Society" chose the structures by which
we are governed. I also have problems with what elected officials and
governing bodies choose to do, but I cannot divorce myself from them -
I am part of the citizenry that selected them whether I like it or
not.

By the way, my house is paid for, my kids are grown and out of
college, my grandsons are a joy that I wish we weren't saddling with
all of our deficit spending, and I am still working and paying taxes
(federal, state, county, municipal and school).


You old fart...

Getting older (and fartier) by the day as my wife (who is 3 months
younger than I) loves to point out - especially during the 3 months
during which I and "a year older" than her ;-)

Dave Hall