Is it time for revolution?

I'm curious, how many people that consider themselves landowners... really are. My guess is that in at least 90% of the cases the bank holds the title.

Anyone that pays taxes on said land (read: is responsible for) is considered a landowner.
 
so they're only legal if the government tells you you can have them? That's a weak argument. And why should the government be telling me what I need? If I want to take steroids, I should be able to.

(Insert "I thought this was america" South Park gif.

And I've never claimed making them illegal or legal makes them less dangerous. But I will say this, it's sad when you have to defend why you should be allowed to do something.

Within your last paragraph lies the problem. You speak of people committing crimes in a "quest" to get high. If you legalize, the market becomes flooded and the prices drop. This would most likely lower drug related crime rates....but even it did not

DOING DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME. You only harm yourself. If a user does harm someone else, hold them accountable.

I'm good with your premise, however, I want to legalize shooting trespassers on sight also. Also, I want instituted the LG law. People should be responsible for family members (like LG says for guns) from cradle to grave. If someone in your family is intoxicated or strung out and causes harm to someone else, there should be an automatic $10mill fine pet damaged person involved. Your family can't pay it, automatic forfeiture of any and all property and life sentences.






This is ridiculous, but so is your last sentence. When you have someone to lose, you will understand that sometimes "being held responsible" just isn't enough.
 
I read his post previously. It wasn't about voting rights, it was about taxes.

So how about you answer the question? Why should non-land owners not have a say in our government?

Because by and large they are takers and not makers. I was responding obsequiously to a stupid post. My opine is that if you are on gov assistance you lose the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Everyone pays property taxes. If you don't pay them directly, then your rent contributes to the property taxes of others.

No, renters pay rent. I'd a renter doesn't pay rent and the owner can't pay taxes, the owner is penalized. Don't confuse the two issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
No, renters pay rent. I'd a renter doesn't pay rent and the owner can't pay taxes, the owner is penalized. Don't confuse the two issues.

But are the taxes not added into the rent? Is that not a factor in the pricing?
 
I'm good with your premise, however, I want to legalize shooting trespassers on sight also. Also, I want instituted the LG law. People should be responsible for family members (like LG says for guns) from cradle to grave. If someone in your family is intoxicated or strung out and causes harm to someone else, there should be an automatic $10mill fine pet damaged person involved. Your family can't pay it, automatic forfeiture of any and all property and life sentences.






This is ridiculous, but so is your last sentence. When you have someone to lose, you will understand that sometimes "being held responsible" just isn't enough.

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what makes attacking someone while you are under the influence versus attacking someone while you are sober relevant? If someone is drunk and belligerent and assaults another person, they aren't charged with drunken brawling. Likewise, if someone is high on crack and assaults another, they should be charged with assault, not crack attack. And since we know that drugs don't automatically transform people into monsters(most often the ones committing crimes to feed their addiction and acting violent towards others already had mental problems and violent tendencies), making the drugs illegal is an attempt of fixing a problem by fighting a symptom, not the cause. Blaming the drug is akin to blaming guns in a school shooting, and I know how fond you probably are of that logic.
 
If they pay rent, they pay property tax.

If the landlord pays passage for a bride from Russia, do you as the renter claim spousal privileges. If the landlord contracts for the murder of a third party, do you aid in the murder as the renter? No? Didn't you indirectly pay for these as the renter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Really? I rented for 10 months recently and don't recall seeing a line item for property tax. This line of reasoning is not going to get you there.

It was factored into the rent. If property taxes would have increased, so would your rent.

But even if we do disagree on that:

You've still not answered the most important question. Why should only property owners be given the right to vote?
 
If the landlord pays passage for a bride from Russia, do you as the renter claim spousal privileges. If the landlord contracts for the murder of a third party, do you aid in the murder as the renter? No? Didn't you indirectly pay for these as the renter?

You didn't consign the contract for the hit man did you? If so, you're ****ed.
 
Why do you guys think people lease land to farmers? Most of the time they make little money from it.

The reason is to pay their property taxes.
 
No, renters pay rent. I'd a renter doesn't pay rent and the owner can't pay taxes, the owner is penalized. Don't confuse the two issues.

He disagrees with that, He's been told that time and time again, but refuses to let it go. You are absolutely right. Renters pay rent, the owner pays taxes.
 
No, renters pay rent. I'd a renter doesn't pay rent and the owner can't pay taxes, the owner is penalized. Don't confuse the two issues.

Whether the property owner is penalized in this scenario depends on the property owner. Such a tax might make most property owners demand payment upfront for a rental property. Thus, your payment by September 1 is your payment for the month of September, while the property tax could be due at the end of the month. Further, like most rental properties in Boston, the property owner can demand a month or more of rent be paid in advance and held as security at the beginning of the rental agreement. When I lived in Boston, our first payment to the property owner was $4,800. $1,600 of that was rent for the first month, the other $3,200 was held by the owner for the length of our residence and was returned when we moved out.

So, sure, such a scheme may end up penalizing such property owners that are not fit to succeed in the economy.

As for having "skin in the game", there are plenty of persons that have "skin in the game" in terms of unowned property, and few that have "skin in the game" in terms of owned property. An overwhelming majority of "landowners" in the US do not, strictly speaking, own their land, as the bank does. But, then, most banks don't have any single owner, but have multiple owners who own a variety of shares.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top