Post Left Wing looniness here

I am in discussion on a Dallas blog on the property tax reduction bill .
Many are saying it isn't fair that renters aren't getting a reduction since they do pay part of the tax through their rent.
One poster says he is a landlord and he thinks renters should get a reduction too since they are usually lower income who cant afford to buy.
Maybe I am missing a point but home owners still will pay thousands in property taxes.
 
I thought the tax relief was based on a much higher homestead exemption and wouldn't apply to commercial or multi-tenant buildings. I could be completely wrong because I have only skimmed the highlights of the bill.
 
No SN That is correct. The reduction only applies to private homes, so far. And even with the reduction the average homeowner will still pay thousands.
The difference will be made up from what is collected in sales tax. Which seems a very equitable way to fund schools since everyone pays sales tax whether they own a home or rent.
But that isn't stopping people from whining that it is unfair for renters to pay their landlords any part of property tax.
If homeowners are getting a reduction they think renters should too.
 
Since the supposed landlord is so adamant that renters should get a reduction is paying property tax since it is so unfair I asked him why He charged his renters any part of the property tax.
waiting on the answer
 
mb227 said:
Concur. Every place I ever leased, it was baked into the monthly nut...
Click to expand...
Property taxes are the largest individual component of operating expenses for commercial property. Taxes go up - rents go up.
 
Well the supposed landlord who is really angry that renters aren't getting property tax break admitted he figures in property taxes in the amount he charges and he won't reduce it to help his renters. Still is saying it isn't fair.
I gave up.
 
They don't own property. They pay no property tax. It is perfectly fair, even if a portion of their rent goes to cover property taxes on their apartment/condo/duplex/whatever.

It is absolutely no different than when politicians raise corporate taxes and we all pay higher prices on the end products to cover them. The renters and other concerned people need to be pissed off at profligate and wasteful government spending which is the source of all of our tax woes.
 
Does the left realize they are starting to alienate feminists with this "trans-inclusive" language? And "bonus hole" sounds like something a bunch of drunk frat dudes would come up with.

 
??? According to that article a trans could have a cervix? Did I get that right? This is all so confusing to a simpleton like me. Color me confused, and disgusted.
 
nashhorn said:
??? According to that article a trans could have a cervix? Did I get that right? This is all so confusing to a simpleton like me. Color me confused, and disgusted.
Click to expand...
Since the article is dealing with catering to 'trans-men' it makes sense. They are female and still generally retain female parts, which include the cervix.
 
nashhorn said:
??? According to that article a trans could have a cervix? Did I get that right? This is all so confusing to a simpleton like me. Color me confused, and disgusted.
Click to expand...

You're not a simpleton. The most "educated" among us are talking themselves into idiocy.
 
Thanks, I honestly had the terminology backwards - but not as backwards as those committing the lunacy. I thought they were transitioning from, not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top