"I also believe that only those that own land should be able to vote.

[Luissa]

If renters vote for a tax then they should have to pay for it just like everyone else does.

Adding a tax on top of rent in my opinion is fair. Rent is high to begin with, so are mortgages. If renters feel the effect of what they are voting on, they may feel differently about voting for things if they to will actually have to pay for.

then maybe i have misunderstood you? i thought you said if the landlord's tax is $10 for a 4 unit building, you want the 4 renters to pay $10 each, which equals $40??? That's $30 bucks more than what is due???

Yes you understood me correctly. 4 units =$40 in taxes paid. I want renters to feel the full force of that they are gleefully voting for.

I would consider each unit a "property" that should be taxed equally with everything else.

Don't you think the property taxes play into the amount they have to pay for rent?
If a landlord doesn't consider his taxes when charging rent, it is his own fault, not the renters.

 

[Care4all]

If renters vote for a tax then they should have to pay for it just like everyone else does.

Adding a tax on top of rent in my opinion is fair. Rent is high to begin with, so are mortgages. If renters feel the effect of what they are voting on, they may feel differently about voting for things if they to will actually have to pay for.

then maybe i have misunderstood you? i thought you said if the landlord's tax is $10 for a 4 unit building, you want the 4 renters to pay $10 each, which equals $40??? That's $30 bucks more than what is due???

Yes you understood me correctly. 4 units =$40 in taxes paid. I want renters to feel the full force of that they are gleefully voting for.

I would consider each unit a "property" that should be taxed equally with everything else.

Syrenn, the ''full force" of what they are voting for, would be the $10....

NOT $40.

$40 is over and above what they voted for.... and how you can think otherwise, is uncomprehensible....no matter how you frame it....if taxes went up $10 bucks for the total on 4 units, then that is what they voted for....and an added $2.50 to their rent covers what they voted for....

but what if they voted against it and the owner voted for it, should there be a law that prevents the owner from charging them the $2.50?

 

[syrenn]

then maybe i have misunderstood you? i thought you said if the landlord's tax is $10 for a 4 unit building, you want the 4 renters to pay $10 each, which equals $40??? That's $30 bucks more than what is due???

Yes you understood me correctly. 4 units =$40 in taxes paid. I want renters to feel the full force of that they are gleefully voting for.

I would consider each unit a "property" that should be taxed equally with everything else.

Don't you think the property taxes play into the amount they have to pay for rent?
If a landlord doesn't consider his taxes when charging rent, it is his own fault, not the renters.

In SF you are only allowed to raise rent 2% per year. What renters vote in far exceeds that number. And they vote in new things every year. So unless the units turn over you cannot raise the rent to cover any taxes.

 

[syrenn]

then maybe i have misunderstood you? i thought you said if the landlord's tax is $10 for a 4 unit building, you want the 4 renters to pay $10 each, which equals $40??? That's $30 bucks more than what is due???

Yes you understood me correctly. 4 units =$40 in taxes paid. I want renters to feel the full force of that they are gleefully voting for.

I would consider each unit a "property" that should be taxed equally with everything else.

Syrenn, the ''full force" of what they are voting for, would be the $10....

NOT $40.

$40 is over and above what they voted for.... and how you can think otherwise, is uncomprehensible....no matter how you frame it....if taxes went up $10 bucks for the total on 4 units, then that is what they voted for....and an added $2.50 to their rent covers what they voted for....

but what if they voted against it and the owner voted for it, should there be a law that prevents the owner from charging them the $2.50?

I understand what you are saying Care, really i do. What i am saying is that taxes should be applied equally to everyone who votes something in.

.

 

[Care4all]

Yes you understood me correctly. 4 units =$40 in taxes paid. I want renters to feel the full force of that they are gleefully voting for.

I would consider each unit a "property" that should be taxed equally with everything else.

Syrenn, the ''full force" of what they are voting for, would be the $10....

NOT $40.

$40 is over and above what they voted for.... and how you can think otherwise, is uncomprehensible....no matter how you frame it....if taxes went up $10 bucks for the total on 4 units, then that is what they voted for....and an added $2.50 to their rent covers what they voted for....

but what if they voted against it and the owner voted for it, should there be a law that prevents the owner from charging them the $2.50?

I understand what you are saying Care, really i do. What i am saying is that taxes should be applied equally to everyone who votes something in.

.

What makes property taxes different than cigarette taxes....?

Those who do not smoke, vote to raise taxes on those that do....

I understand what you are saying as well, but it just can't be done, no matter how you wish it to, or no matter how logical in a sense, that it is...

First off, our votes ARE PRIVATE....it is not for you to know, what a person votes for....or votes against....

 

[Luissa]

Yes you understood me correctly. 4 units =$40 in taxes paid. I want renters to feel the full force of that they are gleefully voting for.

I would consider each unit a "property" that should be taxed equally with everything else.

Don't you think the property taxes play into the amount they have to pay for rent?
If a landlord doesn't consider his taxes when charging rent, it is his own fault, not the renters.

In SF you are only allowed to raise rent 2% per year. What renters vote in far exceeds that number. And they vote in new things every year. So unless the units turn over you cannot raise the rent to cover any taxes.

What if that renter buys a home within that year? They are just shit out of luck because they were a renter for six months?
You do realize that many military people rent homes and apartments? The neighborhood where my parents live is full of Air Force people who either rent homes, or duplexes. It is easy to say, we shouldn't allow renters to vote, because they don't pay property taxes.
When in reality, they pay many other types of taxes, which everyone seems to forget about when having this discussion.
I pay rent. I also pay taxes on gas, cigarettes, now candy, beer, etc. I also have to buy tabs for my car, which have fees and taxes. I also have a cell phone which I pay a lot of taxes one. You cannot come up with a good argument in regards to why renters shouldn't vote, when it comes to taxes.
For my cigarette habit alone, helps pay for other people's health insurance.

 

[Luissa]

Syrenn, the ''full force" of what they are voting for, would be the $10....

NOT $40.

$40 is over and above what they voted for.... and how you can think otherwise, is uncomprehensible....no matter how you frame it....if taxes went up $10 bucks for the total on 4 units, then that is what they voted for....and an added $2.50 to their rent covers what they voted for....

but what if they voted against it and the owner voted for it, should there be a law that prevents the owner from charging them the $2.50?

I understand what you are saying Care, really i do. What i am saying is that taxes should be applied equally to everyone who votes something in.

.

What makes property taxes different than cigarette taxes....?

Those who do not smoke, vote to raise taxes on those that do....

I understand what you are saying as well, but it just can't be done, no matter how you wish it to, or no matter how logical in a sense, that it is...

First off, our votes ARE PRIVATE....it is not for you to know, what a person votes for....or votes against....

Exactly! If you can vote to raise the price of my cigarettes, candy, and beer. I can vote to raise your property taxes.

 

[zzzz]

No. I believe all United States citizens regardless of age, race, wealth, ownership of land, or any other status except offenders in correctional facilites should be allowed to vote. Upon entering a voting station though they should present valid state identification to prove citizenship.

I see arguments here about renters being denied the opportunity to vote for property tax increases. Since we are a representative democracy it is usually our representatives (Who almost all own land and are rich) who vote on tax increases not the taxpayers. When we start to disenfranchise people based on wealth or social status we become something other than a democracy.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

No dead voters, one person, one vote, and citizens only.

Not so different from the current standard, really

 

[L.K.Eder]

only people who have a full beard at least 4 inches long should be able to vote.

 

[007]

OK, I don't mention this often here, but my family owns lots of land, like in the five digit range, does that mean we'd get one vote per acre?

 

[syrenn]

Don't you think the property taxes play into the amount they have to pay for rent?
If a landlord doesn't consider his taxes when charging rent, it is his own fault, not the renters.

In SF you are only allowed to raise rent 2% per year. What renters vote in far exceeds that number. And they vote in new things every year. So unless the units turn over you cannot raise the rent to cover any taxes.

What if that renter buys a home within that year? They are just shit out of luck because they were a renter for six months?
You do realize that many military people rent homes and apartments? The neighborhood where my parents live is full of Air Force people who either rent homes, or duplexes. It is easy to say, we shouldn't allow renters to vote, because they don't pay property taxes.
When in reality, they pay many other types of taxes, which everyone seems to forget about when having this discussion.
I pay rent. I also pay taxes on gas, cigarettes, now candy, beer, etc. I also have to buy tabs for my car, which have fees and taxes. I also have a cell phone which I pay a lot of taxes one. You cannot come up with a good argument in regards to why renters shouldn't vote, when it comes to taxes.
For my cigarette habit alone, helps pay for other people's health insurance.

Then let me clarify. As you can see property tax is a pet peeve of mine, in terms of this city.

If a tax is levied on property for pet projects,(and this city has lots of pet projects) then everyone should pay the price of living in the area that they are voting for raising taxes. Renters living in a property or each unit in a property, should be expected to pay the full amount of taxes...right along with the owner.

In this city,renters out number owners and will invariably vote to fund projects with a tax on property. We have rent control and that will not allow for increases in rent to cover new taxes. IF taxes were levied on everyone, renters and owners alike for living in the city i would feel better about it.

My guess is that what is passed every year in this city would dramatically decrease if the RENTERS had to pay along with the owners.

Granted its not much what each project is asking for. $25 here and $50 there, but when you pass 10 each year and it compounds, it gets aggravating.

I KNOW that is not what will ever happen. But it is MY opinion of how things should be.

 

[ConHog]

I'm wondering just what percentage of renters in San Fran actually have rent controlled rent? Anyone who rents in a building built since 1979 doesn't. That's for certain.

San Francisco Tenants Union

 

[zzzz]

In this city,renters out number owners and will invariably vote to fund projects with a tax on property. We have rent control and that will not allow for increases in rent to cover new taxes. IF taxes were levied on everyone, renters and owners alike for living in the city i would feel better about it.

My guess is that what is passed every year in this city would dramatically decrease if the RENTERS had to pay along with the owners.

Granted its not much what each project is asking for. $25 here and $50 there, but when you pass 10 each year and it compounds, it gets aggravating.

I KNOW that is not what will ever happen. But it is MY opinion of how things should be.[/COLOR]

Who wants to own property that is going to descend into the ocean at some future point in time?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmyaDrAzq6o]YouTube - "If You're Going to San Francisco" by Scott McKenzie[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

Except in a rent controlled area, the renter actually does pay property taxes because the landlord passes those costs on to renter. He may not increase the rent for the current occupant, but you can bet the next time he rents the unit, those taxes will be factored into the rent. In this case it would be very unfair to deny the renter the right to vote on issues that required increase in property taxes.

 

[ConHog]

I would rather have a voter exam. ten questions, if you can't score at least a 70% you don't get to vote. PERIOD.

 

[The Infidel]

Only taxpayers should be able to vote.......and I mean real taxpayers, not the folks who pay no taxes and get a large return. If you are one of the people actually supporting the government, you get to vote. The folks living off the gubmint teat don't get to.

 

[zzzz]

I would rather have a voter exam. ten questions, if you can't score at least a 70% you don't get to vote. PERIOD.

You asked for it, here they are! How many can you answer? All of these are easy questions except for maybe #2.

1. What year did the United Stated declare Independence?
2. How many Amendments are there in the US Constitution?
3. Do you have the right to bear arms?
4. What President freed the slaves south of the Mason Dixon line?
5. Who said “…ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country?”
6. What are the three branches of the US government?
7. Who is fourth in line of succession to the President of the US?
8. Was the Alamo a battle of US forces against Santa Ana and Mexico?
9. How many stars are on the US flag?
10. What do the stripes on the US flag represent?

 

[ConHog]

I would rather have a voter exam. ten questions, if you can't score at least a 70% you don't get to vote. PERIOD.

You asked for it, here they are! How many can you answer? All of these are easy questions except for maybe #2.

1. What year did the United Stated declare Independence?
2. How many Amendments are there in the US Constitution?
3. Do you have the right to bear arms?
4. What President freed the slaves south of the Mason Dixon line?
5. Who said “…ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country?”
6. What are the three branches of the US government?
7. Who is fourth in line of succession to the President of the US?
8. Was the Alamo a battle of US forces against Santa Ana and Mexico?
9. How many stars are on the US flag?
10. What do the stripes on the US flag represent?

1. Official independence declared in 1776
2. 27
3. Yes, but the bears get pissed off when you try to take them
4. Technically speaking Lincoln, although in reality the states south of the mason dixon were not part of the USA at the time the Emancipation Proclamation was given, so they weren't obliged to follow it.
5. FDR who then ironically proceeded to create the New Deal a precursor to today's nanny state.
6. executive,legislative, judicial
7. 4th in line counting the POTUS, that would be the President pro tempore of the Senate. If you meant fourth not counting the POTUS, the Sec of State
8. No, it was a battle between the Republic of Texas, which was not a part of the US at the time, and Mexico.
9. 50, or 57 if you're Obama
10. The 13 original colonies


Do I get to vote?

 

[Si modo]

Boy, I sure would like to see the entire context of Lonestar's comment, but that would be honest.

This is a thread by Wry, so...

Anyway, I have no comment without seeing the entire quote from Lonestar.

If ths is a poll asking that question without an attempt to dishonestly take a comment out of context from another, then the answer is no on its face.

I am loathe to participate in a thread where the OP hasn't the honesty to post a link to the entire quote on which he made the thread.

Typical dishonesty from Wry.