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.
I have no reason to think it IS just a Republican stance.
Different mills come from many different places.
Some are voted on directly......some by boards...and some is legislated.
It does get weird. We don't allow split rolls in NV. But we do limit the rate at which things can rise to 3% for owner occupied and 8% for everything else. We do not however limit the rate at which the assessed valuation can fall. So when everything drops to half we take all properties down. But then the owner occupied come back only at 3%....while not owner occupied comes back at 8%. makes quite a difference after a couple of years.
California's prop 13 is even weirder. It resets on a change of hands...so we can actually have the taxes on a place quadruple when it sells. But commercial property never changes...that is because the commercial guys immediately set up corporations to own all commercial property and sell the corporation not the property. That may get fixed soon but basically says the commercial is in there with the old folk at 20% of the average property tax.
Split rolls have some appeal in Nevada and we might seem that one day. Takes a Constitutional Amendment so a big deal.
Only if the private property owner chooses to exclude public benefit from private holdings. For example, oil companies that choose to distribute refined petroleum only amongst themselves and not sell to the public.
If a product/good/service is made available to the public for purchase, that's providing access to the planet's refined and processed resources.
Who's deprived of anything? Last I checked, anyone could buy property and/or equities. One just must have expended enough of one's own effort to have the means to do so.
Indeed, you are.
Here's a clue: you all believe in Darwinism and evolution, no? Survival of the fittest. Why do you hold the infantile belief that the exact same somehow magically doesn't apply to humans?
Humans are animals, just like all the others.
All animals have parasites, without which they would succumb to cancer (the animals' self-made parasites) or innumerable other diseases.
This country has cancer.
Probably why the government is putting so many toxic chemicals, biologicals and Fukishmas into the system. Course, this only creates more cancer.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going outside to eat some dirt.
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 05-26-2014 at 02:24 PM..
There wouldn't be any parasitism if the wealthy weren't deliberately excluding both humans and animals from their fair share of the planet's resources by force. It isn't exactly a tragedy if someone is making $5 billion instead of $19 billion, but if someone is making $20k instead of $30k, that's significant... and if the emphasis was on creating jobs instead of shipping them overseas or replacing them with robots for profit, then it wouldn't be such an issue.
In a fair world, you would either get rid of the concept of private property or you would share... it's that simple. But it's not a fair world, and if poor people are willing to accept that then the least you could do is stop pretending that rich people are victims... that's insulting to anyone with even a degree of intelligence.
Given that the "poor" already receive 8x as much back in government benefits and handouts as they contribute, while more successful people pay in many times as much as they every will receive, how do you possibly justify taking even more from the very people that are already the ones paying the most? What about all the "takers" that contribute nothing, or nearly so? Sad thing is, nearly 50% of our population is in the "taking" class these days. The burden is already shifting more and more onto fewer and fewer. We need to quit being a nation of useless looters!
We desperately need to ensure that everyone contributes, and that everyone that is physically capable of contributing to society is just that, a net contributor. Our welfare and benefits systems need to be restructured such that the recipients are performing valuable services in return for the benefits received (sort of like "work"-what a strange concept). The entire concept of a handouts, with no demands of anything to earn them, needs to be changed (again, for those physically capable of producing. The tiny percentage that are truly unable to do so are another story). As far as "welfare mamas"-if you're healthy enough to scr*w, you're healthy enough to work.
Society isn't you You're one member of a very large community. Stop trying to think of everything as if it must serve your own personal preferences.
Correct. I made made arguments against the perspectives ect. I have labeled extreme perspectives as extreme.
I have labeled antisocial perspectives as antisocial. I have labeled irrational perspectives as irrational. You seem to be having some difficulty differentiating things associated with you, like your money, and your comments, from your person.
My mistake...I'll rephrase it. Saying that my arguments are extreme is not an argument. If everyone on earth said 1+1=3 and I said it equals 2, you could say that was extreme (and be correct), but I'd still be right. I'd then expect you to explain how it equals 3 to prove me wrong.
Anyway, would you say that the needs of society as a whole outweigh individual rights? Or in other words, an individual's rights may be violated in the name of the greater good? If yes, that's where we fundamentally disagree.
Given that the "poor" already receive 8x as much back in government benefits and handouts as they contribute, while more successful people pay in many times as much as they every will receive, how do you possibly justify taking even more from the very people that are already the ones paying the most? What about all the "takers" that contribute nothing, or nearly so? Sad thing is, nearly 50% of our population is in the "taking" class these days. The burden is already shifting more and more onto fewer and fewer. We need to quit being a nation of useless looters!
We desperately need to ensure that everyone contributes, and that everyone that is physically capable of contributing to society is just that, a net contributor. Our welfare and benefits systems need to be restructured such that the recipients are performing valuable services in return for the benefits received (sort of like "work"-what a strange concept). The entire concept of a handouts, with no demands of anything to earn them, needs to be changed (again, for those physically capable of producing. The tiny percentage that are truly unable to do so are another story). As far as "welfare mamas"-if you're healthy enough to scr*w, you're healthy enough to work.
My mistake...I'll rephrase it. Saying that my arguments are extreme is not an argument.
You made another mistake: You quoted everything in my post except my response to your nonsensical contention that you've repeated here. Here's my reply again, since you had problems seeing it when I first posted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Transgression without punishment (such as expressing preferences for extreme, antisocial perspectives) is "logical" even though it is wrong, and worthy of the repudiation I've presented.
You apparently don't believe in right and wrong except for that which benefits you personally, even though the most universal ethics outline socially-conscious expectations. Your criteria for outrage seem to be exclusively tied to how the criteria support what you personally want. I doubt that you truly fail to see that as an extreme, antisocial perspective. Instead, I think you're simply seeking to engage in a vacuous evasion of reasonable repudiation for the self-motivated claptrap you prefer.
Given that the "poor" already receive 8x as much back in government benefits and handouts as they contribute, while more successful people pay in many times as much as they every will receive, how do you possibly justify taking even more from the very people that are already the ones paying the most?
Excellent point! The top 1% pays 16.67 times more in federal taxes than they get in federal government benefits and services, while the bottom 20% gets more than 8 times the same in what they pay in federal taxes.
Quote:
What about all the "takers" that contribute nothing, or nearly so? Sad thing is, nearly 50% of our population is in the "taking" class these days. The burden is already shifting more and more onto fewer and fewer. We need to quit being a nation of useless looters!
We desperately need to ensure that everyone contributes, and that everyone that is physically capable of contributing to society is just that, a net contributor. Our welfare and benefits systems need to be restructured such that the recipients are performing valuable services in return for the benefits received (sort of like "work"-what a strange concept). The entire concept of a handouts, with no demands of anything to earn them, needs to be changed (again, for those physically capable of producing. The tiny percentage that are truly unable to do so are another story). As far as "welfare mamas"-if you're healthy enough to scr*w, you're healthy enough to work.
You made another mistake: You quoted everything in my post except my response to your nonsensical contention that you've repeated here. Here's my reply again, since you had problems seeing it when I first posted it.You apparently don't believe in right and wrong except for that which benefits you personally, even though the most universal ethics outline socially-conscious expectations. Your criteria for outrage seem to be exclusively tied to how the criteria support what you personally want. I doubt that you truly fail to see that as an extreme, antisocial perspective. Instead, I think you're simply seeking to engage in a vacuous evasion of reasonable repudiation for the self-motivated claptrap you prefer.
The reason I'm confused about this is because, as I've already mentioned, I believe strongly in community and human interaction. I believe in helping others without being forced to (taking someone's money to give to to someone else isn't noble), so I'm not sure how that is antisocial. I don't understand your first sentence either. I definitely believe in right and wrong (universally preferred behavior)...is it that you think I want no rulers to avoid punishment for doing things that are morally wrong?
I think it's kind of funny how we both think the other is evading and changing the subject. We must not be understanding each other very well. From my perspective, My questions haven't been answered either. The whole foundation of my views is the non-aggression principle, which is that it is morally wrong to initiate the use of force against another person. Do you agree with that or disagree?
I have no kids. If I have kids, I intend on homeschooling them. I was homeschooled. School boards can't handle cash correctly. I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbors kids. Yet I am forced to pay? What is this? It feels like I am in some horrible socialist-communist state.
Also, if I buy property, why should I pay the rest of the things associated with property tax on a yearly basis and not just pay it in full when purchasing, or have it included with a mortgage? Why am I constantly obligated to pay property tax every year? What would I do if I wanted to retire?
Property taxes have been imposed since the early 1600's. Originally the Pilgrims used the tax revenues to support schools and churches, regardless if one went to church or used the schools.
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.
