Since we have talked about the issue of welfare recipients getting $$$ without a drug test. I would like to expand on that.If you are on welfare,you waive your voting rights when you are on the dole.Makes sense to me;why allow the folks on the "free ride ticket" to vote to keep on sitting on their ass while we who are paying for this are 'forced' to do so.

A lot of common sense in your idea. Voting for a quality government is important to our liberty and you do not get it from uninformed handout minded voters.

Not that this is a new idea, but it outrages me that people without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of are able to vote to raise Ad Valorem taxes. I think that if you're going to vote to raise my and others taxes, then you should be paying them too. In short, without a property tax bill, one shouldn't be able to vote on Ad Val tax increases.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
In short, without a property tax bill, one shouldn't be able to vote on Ad Val tax increases.

As great sa that sounds what about people like my renters? I include the property taxes as part of the rent I charge so in effect my renters are actually paying the "tax bill" on my property. Should they not get a vote just because they aren't owners?

a drug screen would be enough...

To take another slant, I've said for years that if you can't show a W-2 where you have held a paying job in the last year, (or are retired) you can't vote. To paraphrase Gordo, it's like being out voted by your three kids on how to spend your money.

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
In short, without a property tax bill, one shouldn't be able to vote on Ad Val tax increases.

As great sa that sounds what about people like my renters? I include the property taxes as part of the rent I charge so in effect my renters are actually paying the "tax bill" on my property. Should they not get a vote just because they aren't owners?

No, they shouldn't get a vote, you're paying the taxes and you'll have to pay any increase whether you can charge renters for an increase is not known. Otherwise, using your logic, you shouldn't vote unless you own other property. Rental property is rarely 100% occupied, 100% of the time. Who pays the property taxes on unoccupied units?

Hell, they already think showing ID to vote is wrong. I gladly showed my CHL.

You should be required to have skin in the game! No question.

And the voter id thing is beyond ridiculous. No id no vote!


.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
In short, without a property tax bill, one shouldn't be able to vote on Ad Val tax increases.

As great sa that sounds what about people like my renters? I include the property taxes as part of the rent I charge so in effect my renters are actually paying the "tax bill" on my property. Should they not get a vote just because they aren't owners?

No, they shouldn't get a vote, you're paying the taxes and you'll have to pay any increase whether you can charge renters for an increase is not known. Otherwise, using your logic, you shouldn't vote unless you own other property. Rental property is rarely 100% occupied, 100% of the time. Who pays the property taxes on unoccupied units?

Well then I guess we can add to that...if you haven't served in the U.S. military you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Clearly if you haven't served then you aren't committed to the republic enough to be allowed to vote. Lets see we can add...eventually we can get to some restriction that applies to you.

Taxation without representation was a founding cry of this country but hey lets just forget our history and cut non-land-owners out of the process.

]

quote:

Taxation without representation was a founding cry of this country

No kidding, and that's exactly the point that I as a property owner am being taxed by people who are not represented in the class of property owners. Unless you can please explain to me that someone who owns no property can vote to raise my property taxes is taxation with representation. They are voting to raise my taxes and have no skin in the game. Even if you want to include renters, how about people in subsidized or free housing, do they get to vote to raise my taxes?

all agricultural exemption without any real agriculture should be eliminated.

My neighbor will pay sub $500 in taxes cause he has a few cows on his property. I will pay $14K.

That is a f*cking joke. Also his property is 10-15 times mine. He sold the land the become my sub division.

So now he has a massive lake front lot and house with 2 cows and no taxes. I want that.

Mike

Those alternative valuations were put into place to protect the family farms. They are grossly abused because the tax assessor/collector has to run for office.

OTOH, if you don't like it, get a couple of cows.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
]

quote:

Taxation without representation was a founding cry of this country

No kidding, and that's exactly the point that I as a property owner am being taxed by people who are not represented in the class of property owners. Unless you can please explain to me that someone who owns no property can vote to raise my property taxes is taxation with representation. They are voting to raise my taxes and have no skin in the game. Even if you want to include renters, how about people in subsidized or free housing, do they get to vote to raise my taxes?

But you are represented aren't you?

So conversely if they don't get a vote then they shouldn't have to pay any taxes...is that proposition acceptable?

Did you/do you have children in public school?

The ag exemptions have gotten much harder to get. You need to prove 5 of the previous 7 years as being applicable for one thing.Now I know that this won't change because it's such a cash cow but I have a problem paying the school taxes for others kids. When mine were in school I had no problem.Plus the districts waste the money (here anyway) by passing a $85 million bond for a new high school that does nothing except enrich the realtors. Besides the 1st thing they spent the money on was a new football stadium;my neighbors daughter graduated last year + she told me that even after the administration had gotten their raises the kids still did not have lockers,just ran out of money.And lets not even get into the robin hood act.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Those alternative valuations were put into place to protect the family farms. They are grossly abused because the tax assessor/collector has to run for office.

OTOH, if you don't like it, get a couple of cows.

I am in a subdivision no cows for me.

But i am thinking long term if you want to own any real high dollar real estate - need a an ag exception.

Property taxes in the US suck. Owning real estate is a chore.

Mike

Then instead of bitching about it, you should have thought ahead and bought a tract that was eligible for ag use.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Then instead of bitching about it, you should have thought ahead and bought a tract that was eligible for ag use.

Yup but the problem is these agricultural exceptions are grandfathered in.

So when my neighbor went from having an orange grove that became a land bank that he slowly sold off until he finally ended up with his house and lot and added 2 cows for ag exception. If you were to buy his land and keep his 2 cows - the county would not give you the ag exemption.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Then instead of bitching about it, you should have thought ahead and bought a tract that was eligible for ag use.

Yup but the problem is these agricultural exceptions are grandfathered in.

So when my neighbor went from having an orange grove that became a land bank that he slowly sold off until he finally ended up with his house and lot and added 2 cows for ag exception. If you were to buy his land and keep his 2 cows - the county would not give you the ag exemption.

Mike

That isn't how I interpret the law......http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0193/Sections/0193.461.html

Sure glad for my worm and fish on my small acreage.

quote:

But you are represented aren't you?

So conversely if they don't get a vote then they shouldn't have to pay any taxes...is that proposition acceptable?

Did you/do you have children in public school?

No, I am not fairly represented by the scads of people who can vote to raise my taxes who don't own property to tax. The exact point of taxation without representation.

Of course, it's acceptable, they don't pay any ad valorem taxes now. If their situation changes and they become property owners, then, ipso facto, they become eligible to vote for or against property taxes.

Yes, I had children in public schools. So what? Do you think that responsible citizens won't pay for reasonable ad val taxes for schools? BTW my payments for property taxes over the years would have gotten a class of kids thru high school. And, finally, just because the current system uses ad val taxes, along with help from the feds, to pay for schools, that doesn't mean it's the only way. Sales taxes, for instance, would at least make everyone pay part of the costs.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Sales taxes, for instance, would at least make everyone pay part of the costs.

And there it is right there, you don't want them to have representation but you want them to pay taxes. And I never said anything about fair, life isn't fair.

They are paying taxes, just not property taxes. At the gas pump, at the grocery store, and I don't know a single landlord thta doesn't include his taxes in the rent he charges.

And you want me to pay for public schools that we didn't use. We homeschooled our children at our expense and I had to pay taxes to pay for your kids to go to public school but you are fine with that. So it isn't about fair or having skin in the game it's actually about you getting the most for paying the least at the cost of others having any say in the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Then instead of bitching about it, you should have thought ahead and bought a tract that was eligible for ag use.

Yup but the problem is these agricultural exceptions are grandfathered in.

So when my neighbor went from having an orange grove that became a land bank that he slowly sold off until he finally ended up with his house and lot and added 2 cows for ag exception. If you were to buy his land and keep his 2 cows - the county would not give you the ag exemption.

Mike

That isn't how I interpret the law......http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0193/Sections/0193.461.html

I spoke to my neighbor he is up to 5 cows. Turns out he only owns 2 of them a few belong to another party. There is a rancher with no land who owns a herd of 400-600 cows in central florida. He drops them off at land banks wanting to hold their property under ag exemption. Kind of like a NNN lease.

I asked him what what would happen if someone bought his place and wanted to keep ag exemption. He said there would be issues with property appraiser and person would have to live in his old house.

The guy on other side of him bought some land from him build a massive house (10K sq ft) and planted some pines and sought an exemption and was turned down. He also had a fair bit of litigation of lake shoreline clearing.

Mike

quote:

you don't want them to have representation but you want them to pay taxes

Geesh, can you understand simple sentence structure. I don't want them to pay property taxes because they don't own any property. I don't want them to be "represented" because they don't represent the class of property owners they are trying to tax. /

So now you're saying that if you don't use a public service, such as education, then you shouldn't have to pay. Not using it is your choice, not a requirement. OTOH, when non-property owners vote a new or increased Ad Val tax on me, I don't have an opt our option. Blah, your arguments are not logical.

No one likes to pay taxes.But what makes it so vile is when you see the money wasted.Now we are working on our ag. again. I tried it in the early 90's with pecan trees;bad soil conditions. We are now doing honey bees.I have 10 acres + my son has 5 adjoining.Now I was applicable but he was not due to acreage size.So I got a lawyer that drew it up that he has 50% interest in my property + have 50% in his. We still pay our own taxes but now it is a 15 acre tract + applicable for ag.Takes a lawyer;what a shitty way to get things done.

quote:

So now he has a massive lake front lot and house with 2 cows and no taxes. I want that.

Buy more land and a couple of cows

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

you don't want them to have representation but you want them to pay taxes

Geesh, can you understand simple sentence structure. I don't want them to pay property taxes because they don't own any property. I don't want them to be "represented" because they don't represent the class of property owners they are trying to tax. /

So now you're saying that if you don't use a public service, such as education, then you shouldn't have to pay. Not using it is your choice, not a requirement. OTOH, when non-property owners vote a new or increased Ad Val tax on me, I don't have an opt our option. Blah, your arguments are not logical.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Sales taxes, for instance, would at least make everyone pay part of the costs.

How are they going to have representation for the sales tax you want them to pay if they can't vote becasue they aren't property owners?


I'll use your argument right back at you, you can opt-out of using the services that your increased property taxes pay for since I am sure those increases are used for public services, just like I opted-out of using the public school system that I will be paying for the rest of my life. I don't get an opt-out option for paying the taxes that fund the public school, I will be paying them the rest of my life whether I or any of my family use the schools or not.

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

you don't want them to have representation but you want them to pay taxes

Geesh, can you understand simple sentence structure. I don't want them to pay property taxes because they don't own any property. I don't want them to be "represented" because they don't represent the class of property owners they are trying to tax. /

So now you're saying that if you don't use a public service, such as education, then you shouldn't have to pay. Not using it is your choice, not a requirement. OTOH, when non-property owners vote a new or increased Ad Val tax on me, I don't have an opt our option. Blah, your arguments are not logical.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Sales taxes, for instance, would at least make everyone pay part of the costs.

How are they going to have representation for the sales tax you want them to pay if they can't vote becasue they aren't property owners?


I'll use your argument right back at you, you can opt-out of using the services that your increased property taxes pay for since I am sure those increases are used for public services, just like I opted-out of using the public school system that I will be paying for the rest of my life. I don't get an opt-out option for paying the taxes that fund the public school, I will be paying them the rest of my life whether I or any of my family use the schools or not.

Why didn't you work to make the public school system more palatable to your taste. You could have sent your children there. What was your real reason for home schooling?

quote:

How are they going to have representation for the sales tax you want them to pay if they can't vote becasue they aren't property owners?

Your reading comprehension sucks. I NEVER said that the general voting population can't vote in a sales tax election. I sincerely hope your home schooling wasn't taught by you.

Your "opt out" argument is just plain silly. "Opting out", just as in your choice of home schooling your kids, doesn't reduce your ad val taxes, nor should it and you didn't understand the point at all, which was that your choice was voluntary, and you chose to not use the public schooling. Paying Ad Val tax is not voluntary if you haven't noticed.

I'm done discussing this with your silly responses.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

How are they going to have representation for the sales tax you want them to pay if they can't vote becasue they aren't property owners?

Your reading comprehension sucks. I NEVER said that the general voting population can't vote in a sales tax election. I sincerely hope your home schooling wasn't taught by you.

Your "opt out" argument is just plain silly. "Opting out", just as in your choice of home schooling your kids, doesn't reduce your ad val taxes, nor should it and you didn't understand the point at all, which was that your choice was voluntary, and you chose to not use the public schooling. Paying Ad Val tax is not voluntary if you haven't noticed.

I'm done discussing this with your silly responses.

My reading comprehension is fine you never implied that they should be allowed to vote for all other forms of tax, you said that is they didn't own property thye shouldn't be allowed to vote. And then said that they should be taxed via sales tax. 1+1=2 you don't get to vote and you should pay sale taxes is not the same as saying you can't vote on property tax increases because you don't own property but you can vote on other taxes.

If you had said that to begin with I wouldn't have argued the representation issue but you didn't say it that way until just now.

Give me one valid reason that I should be required to pay taxes for an entire lifetime for a school system that my children never used?

Why should people who never have children be required to pay taxes for the public school system?

As for my ability to homeschool my children...well my oldest son graduated from college a week before his 18th birthday and is currently employed in his chosen field making about 75k a year(not bad for no-where Kansas). My youngest son finished his high school equivalency 4 months before he turned 18 and moved to Oregon(at his own expense). He is currently making nearly 100k plus benefits a year managing the night shift of a large corporate shipping center. Has a wonder wife and son(my only grandchild) and he isn't even 22 yet.

If the measure of success is how they are productive, responsible, members of society and are able to take care of their own without help from the gov't, charities or us then I would say that my wife and I did just fine. Neither one of them has any debt beyond normal monthly utilities and insurance(car, life, etc.) My oldest owns his house outright because he paid cash for it and my youngest is completely debt free with 90k in the bank saving towards the time they will buy their first house in cash.

Where were your children in their 20's? Were they debt free and paid cash for their first homes? Are they debt free now?

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:

Why didn't you work to make the public school system more palatable to your taste. You could have sent your children there. What was your real reason for home schooling?

I tried when my youngest wanted to attend public high school to work with the principal and superintendent but their liberal ideology kept getting in the way. I caught both of them lying to me about state laws and school board rules and regulations. After that I started recording all of my meeting with them. When they learned I had recorded/caught them in their lies they refused to meet with me anymore. So I spent three election cycles getting enough of the school board changed to people who also had problems with them that they wouldn't renew the Superintendent's contract. It finally happened this year...to late to be of any benefit to my children. We'll see what happens with the new Super.

quote:

If you had said that to begin with I wouldn't have argued the representation issue but you didn't say it that way until just now.

Reading comprehension strikes again, eh?

My first post in this thread:

quote:

Not that this is a new idea, but it outrages me that people without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of are able to vote to raise Ad Valorem taxes. I think that if you're going to vote to raise my and others taxes, then you should be paying them too. In short, without a property tax bill, one shouldn't be able to vote on Ad Val tax increases.

To repeat myself, I am done arguing with some one who either can't read or can't think.

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

How are they going to have representation for the sales tax you want them to pay if they can't vote becasue they aren't property owners?

Your reading comprehension sucks. I NEVER said that the general voting population can't vote in a sales tax election. I sincerely hope your home schooling wasn't taught by you.

Your "opt out" argument is just plain silly. "Opting out", just as in your choice of home schooling your kids, doesn't reduce your ad val taxes, nor should it and you didn't understand the point at all, which was that your choice was voluntary, and you chose to not use the public schooling. Paying Ad Val tax is not voluntary if you haven't noticed.

I'm done discussing this with your silly responses.

My reading comprehension is fine you never implied that they should be allowed to vote for all other forms of tax, you said that is they didn't own property thye shouldn't be allowed to vote. And then said that they should be taxed via sales tax. 1+1=2 you don't get to vote and you should pay sale taxes is not the same as saying you can't vote on property tax increases because you don't own property but you can vote on other taxes.

If you had said that to begin with I wouldn't have argued the representation issue but you didn't say it that way until just now.

Give me one valid reason that I should be required to pay taxes for an entire lifetime for a school system that my children never used?

Why should people who never have children be required to pay taxes for the public school system?

As for my ability to homeschool my children...well my oldest son graduated from college a week before his 18th birthday and is currently employed in his chosen field making about 75k a year(not bad for no-where Kansas). My youngest son finished his high school equivalency 4 months before he turned 18 and moved to Oregon(at his own expense). He is currently making nearly 100k plus benefits a year managing the night shift of a large corporate shipping center. Has a wonder wife and son(my only grandchild) and he isn't even 22 yet.

If the measure of success is how they are productive, responsible, members of society and are able to take care of their own without help from the gov't, charities or us then I would say that my wife and I did just fine. Neither one of them has any debt beyond normal monthly utilities and insurance(car, life, etc.) My oldest owns his house outright because he paid cash for it and my youngest is completely debt free with 90k in the bank saving towards the time they will buy their first house in cash.

Where were your children in their 20's? Were they debt free and paid cash for their first homes? Are they debt free now?

Sounds like your offspring are doing OK. I sure wouldn't question Charlie's children. I know they are hard workers and are doing very well in spite of their public school education. They are in probably the top college in our state. You don't get in because you can afford it, you earn it.

Ambition to strive for the basics through hard work and good citizenship has been bred out of a certain sector of our population. We live in a world where we're called bad people if we don't join all the hand-wringers bending over backwards to assume the blame for other's bad behavior.

Being on the gov't dole was never intended to be a life/career choice. There are now multiple generations that have consciously made that choice yet blame you and I. Should they be allowed to vote? I think the answer is obvious to everyone but cowboycs.

I'm way past pissed about being held in contempt for being successful having worked my ass off to get here. The 40% of my income I cough up is unappreciated as it would be if I gave 80%. These liberal dems lump me as a physician in with the megamillionaires.....on what planet is making $125k (or whatever they determined the cutoff is) a year wealthy?

No vote for those that want more of what I worked/work my ass off for. The world needs ditch diggers too and I can say that having been one.

I did too Norton as well as flip burgers,work at pumping gas (+ cleaning the restrooms).I NEVER asked for a free ride,even when my kids were in school after my divorce I could have had free lunches but I packed theirs everyday.I have my own company now + am doing well. I suppose that is why I have such disdain for these free ride advocates.

While we are on the subject of getting fxxked out of our money;let us consider vehicle insurance (which we all are required to have but many don't + are not penalized.Anyway the point here is that in Texas we have to insure every vehicle we own even though we can only drive one at a time. Consider Arizona that insures YOU, THE DRIVER no matter what or who's car you drive. Your monthly bill is based on your driving record.The insurance lobbies do not want that;would deduct millions from their profit;sure would help the common man though.

I'm tired of paying for welfare receipients the same as the rest of you the difference is I am not willing to go back to a caste system were one part of the populace has more rights than another portion of the populace based on some arbitrary factor.

Ohh you don't own land, well no vote for you on anything to do with property. You don't hunt or fish well no vote for you on anything that has to do with wildlife. and so on and so on. Or how about if I own more land or better quality land(higher tax burden) than you then I should be allowed to have more votes. How much do you own Gato? What about the land I own in states that I don't live in, I have to pay taxes on it and I have no vote in those states? How do you plan to fix that?

The answer isn't dividing the populace into categories of representation. The real answer is to remove government from welfare(you know those pesky constitutional limitations).

In a fairytale world we give Gato's way a try what will happen is the politicians will just shift the tax burden for welfare to something else(like that sales tax he wants) only problem with that is states that charge sales tax on food don't apply that to EBT card use, the state doesn't see any point in charging itself sales tax. SO again the non-welfare users are paying for the welfare recipients. And this same thing will contnue to happen no matter how you shift the voting rights around unless you tell those who receive welfare they can't vote period(back to that chestnut).

The only way to actually fix it, is to get the gov't out of welfare. But I guess that is to hard to understand so we should just create a caste system based on varying definitions of what you are capable of owning. Hey this reminds me of that system were serfs had almost no rights, landowners and lords had a few more rights, nobility had even more rights and the King's word was pretty much final. Hmm, why was it we revolted from that system when it was working so well in the 1700's.

My family has never used welfare and never will and it's not because we have always been financially secure. The first year my wife and I were married(with one child) we filed taxes on 6000.00 gross for both our incomes(this was in 1994) so I know what it's like to be poor and own nothing but I never needed the state to help me either. You are all upset because you will probably never use gov't assistance and you have to pay for those who are, I understand I really do, but creating a caste system is not the answer. The answer is removing the gov't from things they are not empowered to do.

There should be no gov't financed(through taxes) schools, all schools should be private. Same with fire departments, there are places in this country that allow you to opt out of paying your taxes for the fire dept. If your house cathces on fire they will still show up but you get billed for the service, either your insurance pays or you pay out of pocket if/when you use the service. Hospitals and Doctors should not be subsidized by tax dollars either, the cost would come down drastically if the gov't would get out of the insurance and health care business and malpractice suits were actually limited to negligence determined by an independent investigation. When you don't have medicaid, medicare, title 19, Kancare(in Kansas) propping up the healthcare system then the market will correct and actually charge for services rendered. I know this because I have negotiated my hospital bills everytime I have used the hospital and it didn't cost me $14 for two tylenol, it cost $0.30(as it should).

I went to the dentist this morning and had a filling done and a rear molar pulled and the molar ended up being a surgical extraction not a simple pulling. Guess what my total cost was...less than $200.00 because I paid cash. See my dentist understand that when I pay cash they don't have to file any paperwork or wait on decisions by insurance companies or the gov't so they only charges me for services rendered. Looking at my receipt, the total(split between me and Insurance) would have been closer to $1000.00 if they were billing an Insurance company. And I don't know what portion the stae would pay if the same procedure was done on a welfare patient.

The point is, that is the way it is supposed to work, the gov't is not supposed to be involved in welfare or schools or insurance or dozens of other things that we are taxed for. Get the gov't back in it's proper limits and the tax burden for those things wouldn't exist.

Or maybe this is all just the drugs talking since the Dentist put me on painkillers...ohh and the prescription only cost me $6.00 instead of $35.00 because my pharmacy has a cash rate that is different from the insured rate/gov't welfare rates.

Funny how things are pretty reasonable when you remove the gov't from the equation.

I have a friend that wanted to go in for a colonostopy testing + had no insurance. She checked around + the going rate was about $5000.00. She found one place + told them she would pay cash so they said,"How about $800.00?"

I'm beginning to think CowboyCS's dentist and NormanConquest's colonoscopy surgeon are the same individual; which would make me nervous. I haven't found any professional in the Dallas area willing to give me an 85% discount for cash.

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
I'm beginning to think CowboyCS's dentist and NormanConquest's colonoscopy surgeon are the same individual; which would make me nervous. I haven't found any professional in the Dallas area willing to give me an 85% discount for cash.

As a doc I can say.....you'll search long and hard before you find one willing to do that. That said, TX is probably the place to do it....lol.