Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For a $1.5 million house? That's NOTHING. I thought NJ had high taxes? Something's not right about that. Here in the Chicago suburbs, a $1.5 million house will cost you $30,000 per year in real estate taxes (about 2% of market value), and we generally pay less than NJ.
Yes, I rechecked with the county and I got the correct local aggregate tax rate. But it appears I misinterpreted the "ratio" that I found listed...where I come from, this ratio is the multiplier applied to the nominal tax rate for "equalization" i.e. to compensate for local misvaluation.
In this case, it appears (my guess) that the "ratio" is the ratio of the local assessment to the equalized assessment, i.e. the reciprocal of the equalization. If my guess is correct (and certainly plausible given the original calculation), the local prop values are underassessed, and the appropriate property tax should be over $16000.
My error apparently was in multiplying the nominal tax rate by the "ratio" instead of by the reciprocal of the ratio as is done where I come from.
Having said that, this is a resort town with lots of summer vacationers - people who own a home for summer use and who do not live there year-round and do not have kids in the local schools. For example, the school portion of the property tax is only about one-fifth of the total property tax.
Property owner who pays taxes, worker that pays taxes, or part of a household where the primary breadwinner is a taxpayer and you are one of his/her dependents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38
what is so unfair about one having skin in the game as a prerequisite to voting?
On page 3 I answered this question .. (along with the US being a Constitutional Republic) and I could only wish that folks would Read the posts before spouting their diatribes ... again!
I will repeat myself here for your benefit .. "The Constitution does not grant us a single right".
"It limits the power of government and protects our unalienable rights against the encroachments of government".
Also: The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."
LOL, you are not the genius in Constitutional Law that you seem to think you are. Let me guess, you took a few classes at the Beck University.
You have failed to address the fact that the Constitution does grant an individual citizen the right to vote for the person that will represent them in the House of Representatives. Did you forget that part or just leave it out since it doesn't fit your agenda?
Constitutional amendments can be and have been repealed.
That is true, and not just Amendments, but almost anything in the Constitutional generally can be repealed or amended. Techincally under article 5 of the Constitution, if followed, the Constitution can be amended to proclaim the US as an Islamic nation.
With that said it takes a lot to get something in the Constitution changed and if something is in the Constitution it is generally in there for a good reason. Regardless as it stands now making a tax requirement to vote is highly unconstitutional.
Yes, I rechecked with the county and I got the correct local aggregate tax rate. But it appears I misinterpreted the "ratio" that I found listed...where I come from, this ratio is the multiplier applied to the nominal tax rate for "equalization" i.e. to compensate for local misvaluation.
In this case, it appears (my guess) that the "ratio" is the ratio of the local assessment to the equalized assessment, i.e. the reciprocal of the equalization. If my guess is correct (and certainly plausible given the original calculation), the local prop values are underassessed, and the appropriate property tax should be over $16000.
My error apparently was in multiplying the nominal tax rate by the "ratio" instead of by the reciprocal of the ratio as is done where I come from.
Having said that, this is a resort town with lots of summer vacationers - people who own a home for summer use and who do not live there year-round and do not have kids in the local schools. For example, the school portion of the property tax is only about one-fifth of the total property tax.
I had the same situation in Wisconsin in a resort town, and still had to pay $14,000 per year in real estate taxes. I used minimal local services, no kids in the public schools, LOADS of summer tourists paid entertainment and hotel taxes, etc... didn't matter. I had to pay the FULL amount.
Those that do not PAY to vote should not be allowed to vote for free? What kind of logic is that...If we oppressed the poor and took away their ability to vote- what would happen? You would have the privileged voting on things like - bringing back slavery..and of course the rich "contributing" voters would not vote to enslave themselves.
Contribution might be a well placed and wise vote...that could come from the lowest of low- non- contributor. If a person gathers up 20 bucks for a bottle of booze or a couple of packs of smokes...and is taxed on that effort- Has contributed...Who is to judge what a contribution is? 10 dollar tax contribution or a 100 thousand dollar tax contribution...both are contributions.
I propose that only property owners be allowed to vote.
The only tax that will be collected will be property tax - which obviously can only be paid by property owners.
It is simple and elegant: if you want to vote - you must own property - if you don't want to pay taxes - rent.
(This proposal would disenfranchise most of the liberal inhabitants of New York City - which can't be a bad thing.)
It would also disenfranchinse me.
Aside from being Unconsititutional.
People would just start inventing weird interests in property in order pay almost nothing in tax, while maintaining the vote. Then there is the question of what happens if you own property in multiple states how do you vote then? There is also the question of what happens when you have property held through various entities that are controlled by one, or a small group of people.
I imagine you would also have the problem of people bringing back archaic ideas about property holding and inheritance, the kind existed back in Britain when land was power, that protect their families rights and prestige, but also cause problems with alienability, declining productive use of land, and asset encumbrence and stagnation.
Since zoning has been ruled constitutional, what's to stop property owners from disenfranchising the poor through zoning?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
