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.
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.
Well, I look at it like this: yes, Amy owns the home and is directly paying property taxes on the home, which gives her a vested interest in the outcome of the election. But that's only part of the story. Indeed, Bob and his family, through their rent payments, are indirectly paying the property taxes (and Amy would likely pass on any increase in taxes in the form of higher rent), which gives them an interest (if not a stronger interest than Amy as they are the ones actually providing the funds for the property taxes . . . not to mention that they may have children who would benefit from the new school) in the outcome as well. That's how I look at things.
Well, I look at it like this: yes, Amy owns the home and is directly paying property taxes on the home, which gives her a vested interest in the outcome of the election. But that's only part of the story. Indeed, Bob and his family, through their rent payments, are indirectly paying the property taxes (and Amy would likely pass on any increase in taxes in the form of higher rent), which gives them an interest (if not a stronger interest than Amy as they are the ones actually providing the funds for the property taxes . . . not to mention that they may have children who would benefit from the new school) in the outcome as well. That's how I look at things.
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?
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?
I think it should be left to the people who live in the community and those who will be responsible for actually paying the taxes. Amy, as an example of a homeowner, could avert this "problem" by not renting out her home. By deciding to rent out her home, however, she invites others to live and invest in the community through payment of taxes, etc., which I feel legitimately gives those new people (i.e. the tenants) a say on whether to raise the taxes.
I think it should be left to the people who live in the community and those who will be responsible for actually paying the taxes. Amy, as an example of a homeowner, could avert this "problem" by not renting out her home. By deciding to rent out her home, however, she invites others to live and invest in the community through payment of taxes, etc., which I feel legitimately gives those new people (i.e. the tenants) a say on whether to raise the taxes.
What about if the neighborhood takes a vote on whether or not to construct new tennis courts? Who should decide that? Is there any real difference?
What about if the neighborhood takes a vote on whether or not to construct new tennis courts? Who should decide that? Is there any real difference?
As long as taxpayers (whether indirect or direct taxpayers) are going to be paying for the new tennis courts, I don't see much of a difference, though I can understand that some may.
As a LL that didn't live in the same town, it was annoying that I had no say (or vote) on issues that did affect my property.
Tenants would come and go but the property and ramifications of many issues remained mine.
But the same problem affects people with homes in more than one location, too....millions of snowbirds, for instance. You won't be able to vote in both.
There doesn't seem to be an easy solution.
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?
Amy doesn't live in Anytown. Why should she get a vote? The location of her investment property doesn't matter. Amy can vote in whatever city she legally calls home. If th taxes increase in the location of her investment property, she can pass that on to the renters. It's a cost of doing business expense.
If I own shares of Google, do I get a vote in the local elections of Mountain View, CA?
Amy doesn't live in Anytown. Why should she get a vote? The location of her investment property doesn't matter. Amy can vote in whatever city she legally calls home. If th taxes increase in the location of her investment property, she can pass that on to the renters. It's a cost of doing business expense.
If I own shares of Google, do I get a vote in the local elections of Mountain View, CA?
How do you conflate this line of thought with the homeowner's association raising money for a new community pool? In that case, Amy gets to decide on the pool, not the tenant. I don't see the difference.
How do you conflate this line of thought with the homeowner's association raising money for a new community pool? In that case, Amy gets to decide on the pool, not the tenant. I don't see the difference.
For me, property tax is one thing, it's part of government.
A pool or tennis courts, that's a social thing.
Amy can't legally vote where she does not live when it comes to laws and taxes
However, if Amy owns property in a gated community or whatever, and that community is taking votes in regards to the management or improvement of the community, beings she owns a 'part' of that community, she should have a say- even if she does not live there.
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.
