quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
In any case, none of these will happen in our lifetimes if ever.

They may make for an interesting discussion with a wide range of opinions but that's about all.

Yep. But interesting discussion is how change begins. I do like the ideas of 71 TRUCK.
Our government is too involved in the education of our young people.

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
I grew up in a town with a very high school budget. It made up a significant part of the property tax bill. I knew senior citizens who could not retire because of this.
They for the most part would have to sell the house they had been in for decades and move to be able to afford to retire.

Where was this?

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
....I knew senior citizens who could not retire because of this.
They for the most part would have to sell the house they had been in for decades and move to be able to afford to retire.

I often wondered if it would be good for anyone over 70 to no longer pay taxes on their primary residence. They have paid a lifetime already by that point. Many on fixed incomes could then stay where they are currently living.

I also think the inheritance tax should be abolished. The deceased person paid taxes for their earnings. If there would be an investment disbursement, it should be taxed as if the deceased person took it out. At their tax rates, not at the tax rate of any recipients. It not like the recipients won a lottery and need to pay for untaxed funds.

I could be wrong with my understanding of things, but it seems to penalize older folks and their legacy wealth.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
I grew up in a town with a very high school budget. It made up a significant part of the property tax bill. I knew senior citizens who could not retire because of this.
They for the most part would have to sell the house they had been in for decades and move to be able to afford to retire.

Where was this?

Central New Jersey near the shore.

Musk veers between genius and idiocy pretty regularly. He'll say any damn thing.

With all due respect to Elon, he's arguing from a false premise. It is not only parents who have an interest in the future. There are many reasons why someone might want a better world, than just to make things easier for their kids. For example: why bother saving money for retirement? Perhaps one's future financial expectations might influence one's opinion on taxation, fiscal policy, and other Govt. thievery. Much more sensible would be to relieve childless taxpayers from that portion of a Govt. budget devoted to public education (not that this will ever happen either).

I agree that we'd be better off if the franchise were reserved for tax-paying citizens who are not a net drain on their fellow man. I recall that Heinlein described a future society (in Starship Troopers) where a term of public service (in the military) was required to obtain the franchise, this might work too. A general principle of "you can't take out more than you put in."

Yeah, I'm sure that would be racist for some reason.

Along the same premise, should Renters be allowed to vote on issues that affect the amount of taxes that Homeowners pay ?

quote:

Originally posted by TomV:
Along the same premise, should Renters be allowed to vote on issues that affect the amount of taxes that Homeowners pay ?

Oh, now you are just hinting at the potential problem of banning non-property owners from voting. Renters do, indirectly, pay property taxes. You trouble maker.

And no one here suggested disenfranchising non-real-property owners, but sometimes people do suggest it, and it is an example of the problem of linking voting to a status.

Some here did suggest that net takers from the government shouldn't get to vote. First, how is this to be calculated or determined. I don't think that is so easy. Second, since we run a giant deficit each year, isn't it possible that most all of us don't cover our nut every year, since the government has to borrow to make its outlays? Would 90% of us be disenfranchised under that plan?

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
....I knew senior citizens who could not retire because of this.
They for the most part would have to sell the house they had been in for decades and move to be able to afford to retire.

I often wondered if it would be good for anyone over 70 to no longer pay taxes on their primary residence. They have paid a lifetime already by that point. Many on fixed incomes could then stay where they are currently living.

I also think the inheritance tax should be abolished. The deceased person paid taxes for their earnings. If there would be an investment disbursement, it should be taxed as if the deceased person took it out. At their tax rates, not at the tax rate of any recipients. It not like the recipients won a lottery and need to pay for untaxed funds.

I could be wrong with my understanding of things, but it seems to penalize older folks and their legacy wealth.

The inheritance tax is double taxation. Or even triple or more, if the wealth has passed through multiple generations. It is conceptually problematic.

Banning property taxes on the old might just prompt legislatures to impose consumption taxes to make up for shortfalls (because we know the lege won't cut spending). Plus, old people do still consume many of the government services that property taxes pay for. It is a more difficult question.

quote:

Banning property taxes on the old WILL might just prompt legislatures to impose consumption taxes to make up for shortfalls (because we know the lege won't cut spending). Plus, old people do still consume many of the government services that property taxes pay for. It is a more difficult question.

Old taxes don't fade away, they just reemerge in a new form.

Like the gas taxes per gallon of gas/diesel for State and Federal Highway funds... and the forced conversion to EV's....

Government: Lets Ban Gas Cars!
Government: Hey our road taxes are going down!
Government: Hey theses EV cars are heavier and we're going to have to resurface and redesign roads, bridges, underdrainage!
Government: Lets Tax EV's by the mile
Government: Keep the gas taxes and hey raise them, because, taxes!

Wait until CA homeowners and businesses get the new EV tax on their electric bills even if they don't own one...

Government: Hey you'll like the new Tax, it's for the environment!

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
....I knew senior citizens who could not retire because of this.
They for the most part would have to sell the house they had been in for decades and move to be able to afford to retire.

I often wondered if it would be good for anyone over 70 to no longer pay taxes on their primary residence. They have paid a lifetime already by that point. Many on fixed incomes could then stay where they are currently living.

I also think the inheritance tax should be abolished. The deceased person paid taxes for their earnings. If there would be an investment disbursement, it should be taxed as if the deceased person took it out. At their tax rates, not at the tax rate of any recipients. It not like the recipients won a lottery and need to pay for untaxed funds.

I could be wrong with my understanding of things, but it seems to penalize older folks and their legacy wealth.

The inheritance tax is double taxation. Or even triple or more, if the wealth has passed through multiple generations. It is conceptually problematic.

Banning property taxes on the old might just prompt legislatures to impose consumption taxes to make up for shortfalls (because we know the lege won't cut spending). Plus, old people do still consume many of the government services that property taxes pay for. It is a more difficult question.

You are correct older Americans do still consume Government services. My thought was to eliminate the burden of the school tax on them because for the most part I would think they would no longer have children in school.

I know in Florida we do have certain discounts for certain groups of individuals. Back when I live in NJ 23 years ago as far as I remember no one got a break however that may have changed.
My mother who still live in NJ is paying somewhere around 10,000 to 13,000 dollars a year.
A good part of that from what I remember was school taxes.

Elon has said in the past that not everything he says "has the same quality of thought" behind it. This sounds like one of those times, if he even said it at all.

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:
. My thought was to eliminate the burden of the school tax on them because for the most part I would think they would no longer have children in school.

The argument for school taxes, is that the nation benefits from an educated voter body.

And, frankly, if a high school diploma meant reading and writing on the 12th grade level, understanding the basics of statistics, economics, geometry, algebra and how to calculate compounding/debt it would be well worth the cost - and there would be very little reason for anyone to go to a non-technical college.

On the surface it sounds like he was using hyperbole to make a point. And if it was that (I don't know for lack of looking into it), I've noticed lots of normal people, including educated folk, don't always pick up and appreciate an otherwise bona fide use of hyperbole to make a point. Maybe it has something to do with one's nature, like being a natural skeptic, or something along those lines. Or the fact that high IQ does not even weakly correlate with good judgement.