Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-09-2015, 11:58 AM
 
3,253 posts, read 3,729,472 times
Reputation: 4460

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Strangers on the internet thinking it's fair means nothing. If it bothers you that much, contact the legislators.

Personally, I think the law makes sense. Other people will think it makes sense. Perhaps you are the outlier??
I'm not sure why anyone thinks it make sense for someone who doesn't pay property tax to decide your property tax rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2015, 12:03 PM
 
3,253 posts, read 3,729,472 times
Reputation: 4460
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
This would be another way to concentrate power for the wealthy and dilute the power of the poor.

Let's say Amy owns a 25-unit apartment building. What you want to do is allow Amy to vote only while the 25+ residents of the area are disenfranchised.

Even worse would be if Amy owns 25 different rental houses. You seem to want to let Amy vote 25 times while the renters have no vote. In this scenario, Absentee Amy would have 25 times more votes than a person who owned just one house in Anytown.

As pointed out earlier, the RESIDENTS of the area pay the taxes directly if they own the home, or indirectly if they rent.
In regards to PROPERTY TAX, yes, Amy should be able to vote and not the people who don't own the property. Sales tax, local legislators, etc. should be voted on by the residents. I'm not sure how you should handle multiple units. Obviously someone who owns a $5 million home is going to may more in property tax than someone who owns 5 $100,000 homes in the same area.

However, I think it is quite clear that when property tax changes come to a vote, people who pay no property tax should not have infinitely more voice than those who actually pay the tax. And that is the case right now.

You can say they pay it indirectly, but what about the people who pay it directly? Where is their voice?

The more I think about it, the more clear it seems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 12:09 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
44,893 posts, read 59,882,454 times
Reputation: 60437
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
In regards to PROPERTY TAX, yes, Amy should be able to vote and not the people who don't own the property. Sales tax, local legislators, etc. should be voted on by the residents. I'm not sure how you should handle multiple units. Obviously someone who owns a $5 million home is going to may more in property tax than someone who owns 5 $100,000 homes in the same area.

However, I think it is quite clear that when property tax changes come to a vote, people who pay no property tax should not have infinitely more voice than those who actually pay the tax. And that is the case right now.

You can say they pay it indirectly, but what about the people who pay it directly? Where is their voice?

The more I think about it, the more clear it seems.
In how many jurisdictions are tax increases a voter decision and not a function of the elected governmental body? I think Ohio has voter referenda for school tax increases but I don't know of many more.

If I had my way renters, as well as non-resident property owners, wouldn't vote. But that's just me. For those of you who disagree with me about renters that's fine. I've seen too much abuse of process by them over the last 30 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 12:18 PM
 
7,572 posts, read 5,282,695 times
Reputation: 9436
The question raises in my mind some sort of feudal concept of property. The lord, Amy, despite living in another location by nature of their nobility has the power to influence what is done in not only her property but the governance of the local town. That doesn't work in a democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 12:19 PM
 
2,902 posts, read 1,957,565 times
Reputation: 3474
Renters pay the taxes through their rent. A property owner adds up their expenses before determining what to charge tenants, and that includes taxes. As a renter I've had my rent increased in intervals as large as $75 at a time for a small one bedroom apartment. Why in the world would anyone working and living in a city/town not have a right to vote if they were of voting age? I don't think that would go over well.

As far as an out of state property owner not having a right to vote, they probably have a property manager taking care of the property who lives in the same city as the property, and they'd most likely vote against any increase in property taxes. They wouldn't want to pay it on their own homes, nor would they want to have a high turnover of tenants as the rents increase when property taxes go up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 12:51 PM
 
3,253 posts, read 3,729,472 times
Reputation: 4460
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB View Post
Renters pay the taxes through their rent. A property owner adds up their expenses before determining what to charge tenants, and that includes taxes. As a renter I've had my rent increased in intervals as large as $75 at a time for a small one bedroom apartment. Why in the world would anyone working and living in a city/town not have a right to vote if they were of voting age? I don't think that would go over well.

As far as an out of state property owner not having a right to vote, they probably have a property manager taking care of the property who lives in the same city as the property, and they'd most likely vote against any increase in property taxes. They wouldn't want to pay it on their own homes, nor would they want to have a high turnover of tenants as the rents increase when property taxes go up.
I'm not saying anything in regards to having a right to vote. I am talking specifically about a referendum on property tax changes. Clearly renters should be able to vote on the mayor. But if they don't own property, I don't see why they should be voting on a property tax referendum.

As for a property manager, that is apples to oranges. Again, they don't own the property. They don't pay the property tax bill. Also, don't assume property owners would want to vote down tax increases. I actually support most property tax increases where I own property (but don't get to vote). I am considering changing where I am registered to vote because I believe I am more effected by the place where I own property more than where I currently rent.

The reason I got to thinking about this is because I live (but rent) in one city while I own a home in another. The other day, I was able to vote on a property tax increase where I don't own property yet I am unable to vote on a property tax increase where I do own property. It just seems backwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,142,139 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
Let's say Anytown, USA, is holding a vote to decide whether or not to raise property taxes by some amount to fund the construction of a new school.

If Amy owns a house and rents it out to Bob and his family, but doesn't live in Anytown herself, who should be making the decision on whether or not to raise property taxes.

It sure seems to me like Amy should be the one voting... not Bob. But I'm pretty sure Bob would get to vote, not Amy (though I guess it depends where Amy is registered to vote; Let's just assume she is registered to vote elsewhere).

I don't really see a difference between this situation and if a Homeowner's Association were to vote on improving some aspect of the community. In that case, the property owners get a vote (and quite often weighted percentages based on the amount of square feet they own in the neighborhood/building or something).

I understand one is a private and the other is public, but philosophically it seems the same.

Thoughts?
Property does NOT have rights. People have rights. People have rights to property but the actual piece of real estate does not. It's an inanimate thing.

Amy gets to vote where she lives. If she wants to vote where she owns rental property, then she either needs to move to where that property is or she should only buy rental properties within her voting district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 01:05 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,312,623 times
Reputation: 29336
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
Yeah... I do understand that the added tax will eventually be passed along to the residents whether they rent or own, but shouldn't the decision on whether to raise the tax or not be left to the homeowners and not the tenants?
No!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 01:17 PM
 
3,253 posts, read 3,729,472 times
Reputation: 4460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
No!
So let's say in theory a vote comes up to raise property taxes by 5,000 percent and it passes because 90% of the residents in the district rent. Is this fair? Sure, the owner can increase the rent by 500% to account for that, but that doesn't change the current terms of the lease and the renters would simply move to a different place while the property owners are still stuck with the increased tax rate.

5000% increase in property tax is hyperbole of course, but the idea is the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 01:18 PM
 
3,253 posts, read 3,729,472 times
Reputation: 4460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Property does NOT have rights. People have rights. People have rights to property but the actual piece of real estate does not. It's an inanimate thing.

Amy gets to vote where she lives. If she wants to vote where she owns rental property, then she either needs to move to where that property is or she should only buy rental properties within her voting district.
I'm not saying the property should vote... but the owners of the property should... when it comes to a property tax. Telling someone to only buy rental properties where they live is crazy. It's almost like telling gay people to just live in places where they have adequate civil rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top