Michelle Steiner

In article <49f92410@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
"Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:

> I live in MN lakes country where about 2/3 of the property is
> seasonal. Those of us who live here all year get a "homestead
> exemption" which reduces our property tax by 50%.

I live in Arizona, where a lot of the property is seasonal too. Voting
laws in the country are that those who live in an area get to vote in
that area; if someone chooses to own property that is not their primary
residence, that's their choice. No one is forcing them to do so.

For that matter, anytime you buy something and pay sales tax outside of
the area where you live, you're paying taxes that you weren't
represented for, but it's your choice to buy there.

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.

Was Istoben

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-9E429F.21594129042009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <49f92410@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
> "Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:
>
>> I live in MN lakes country where about 2/3 of the property is
>> seasonal. Those of us who live here all year get a "homestead
>> exemption" which reduces our property tax by 50%.
>
> I live in Arizona, where a lot of the property is seasonal too. Voting
> laws in the country are that those who live in an area get to vote in
> that area; if someone chooses to own property that is not their primary
> residence, that's their choice. No one is forcing them to do so.
>
> For that matter, anytime you buy something and pay sales tax outside of
> the area where you live, you're paying taxes that you weren't
> represented for, but it's your choice to buy there.
>
Exactly. Whenever one chooses to reside in the legal jurisdiction of
another they find themselves taxed without representation, as was the case
when North America was divided into legal jurisdictions of England, France
and Spain.

Note that in my property tax example those living outside the jurisdiction
aren't simply paying the same tax those who live within the jurisdiction but
instead more than twice as much. It's quite a stretch to compare that with
non-residents and residents paying the same sales tax.

In 1773 those who complained of taxation without representation were not
forced to live in a British jurisdiction. In 2009, those who complain of
taxation without representation in my jurisdiction aren't forced to own
property here. Distinction without a difference. Taxation without
representation in both cases.

Michelle Steiner

In article <49f9b915$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
"Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:

> > the area where you live, you're paying taxes that you weren't
> > represented for, but it's your choice to buy there.
> >
> Exactly. Whenever one chooses to reside in the legal jurisdiction of
> another they find themselves taxed without representation, as was the
> case when North America was divided into legal jurisdictions of
> England, France and Spain.

No, not like that case. In the case of the colonists, they were taxed
where they lived by a government that was elsewhere, and that they had
no representation in. In the case of property tax that we're
discussing, the property is not where they live.

About the only people in the United States who have a legitimate claim
of taxation without representation are those who live in Washington DC.

> Note that in my property tax example those living outside the
> jurisdiction aren't simply paying the same tax those who live within
> the jurisdiction but instead more than twice as much. It's quite a
> stretch to compare that with non-residents and residents paying the
> same sales tax.

So get rid of the homestead exemption.

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.

Was Istoben

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-BD707E.08000430042009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <49f9b915$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
> "Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:
>
>> > the area where you live, you're paying taxes that you weren't
>> > represented for, but it's your choice to buy there.
>> >
>> Exactly. Whenever one chooses to reside in the legal jurisdiction of
>> another they find themselves taxed without representation, as was the
>> case when North America was divided into legal jurisdictions of
>> England, France and Spain.
>
> No, not like that case. In the case of the colonists, they were taxed
> where they lived by a government that was elsewhere, and that they had
> no representation in. In the case of property tax that we're
> discussing, the property is not where they live.
>
> About the only people in the United States who have a legitimate claim
> of taxation without representation are those who live in Washington DC.
>
>> Note that in my property tax example those living outside the
>> jurisdiction aren't simply paying the same tax those who live within
>> the jurisdiction but instead more than twice as much. It's quite a
>> stretch to compare that with non-residents and residents paying the
>> same sales tax.
>
> So get rid of the homestead exemption.
>
Why? Makes us feel like a king!

Gordon McGrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:50:15 -0500, Ant <carpenterareus@anthouse.com>
wrote:

>In article <Xns9BFCC4B248F05tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
>> 14F511.18394928042009@mara100-84.onlink.net:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9BFBD4B259210tegger@208.90.168.18>,
>> > Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided
>> >> >> you didn't count development costs).
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.
>> >>
>> >> It happens to be true, sorry.
>> >
>> > So provide a reference to prove it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your flinty-eyed skepticism has yielded success: I appear to be
>> out-of-date.
>>
>> According to Forbes,
>> "Toyota's Prius came out in 1997 and did not break even until just before
>> the introduction of a second-generation car in model-year 2004."
>>
>> This from the article
>> <http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/07/hybrids-cars-suvs-cx_dl_1011feat_ls.html>
>>
>> Except that now Toyota dealers can't give Priuses away, so the implied
>> post-'04 profit has probably disappeared.
>
>Will I be able to buy one now for say $13500? That's about all I'd pay
>for one today.

See your Chrysler dealer. Or wait for one of them Chinese cars.

Gordon McGrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:24:10 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <49f90eba@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
> "Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:
>
>> > existed 200 years ago, I learn something new every day.
>>
>> He refers to our the revolution we fought over taxation without
>> representation.
>
>Yeah, that's what he meant, but how would London's taxation with
>representation in the 21st century have any relationship to the
>colonies' taxation without representation in the 18th century?
>
>> It must been have been a good way to raise money because we sure do a
>> lot of it ourselves today.
>
>What taxation without representation do we have today?

Maybe he lives in Washington DC. I say we give them at least a Rep.

Was Istoben

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:70mkv45ggnml7j59n1vjvadmfqmh7mv0jl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:24:10 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>>In article <49f90eba@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
>> "Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > existed 200 years ago, I learn something new every day.
>>>
>>> He refers to our the revolution we fought over taxation without
>>> representation.
>>
>>Yeah, that's what he meant, but how would London's taxation with
>>representation in the 21st century have any relationship to the
>>colonies' taxation without representation in the 18th century?
>>
>>> It must been have been a good way to raise money because we sure do a
>>> lot of it ourselves today.
>>
>>What taxation without representation do we have today?
>
> Maybe he lives in Washington DC. I say we give them at least a Rep.
>
Whenever you are taxed by a jurisdiction over which you have no influence
you are taxed without representation. It's that simple. It's common.
Sales tax is another good example. Buy a lollipop in another state and you
will be taxed without representation. Buy a car in that state, however, and
you will be taxed in your own jurisdiction. See? Size matters.

Gordon McGrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:07:44 -0500, "Was Istoben"
<entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:

>
>"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>news:michelle-E1D576.21002829042009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
>> In article <49f91cf5$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
>> "Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > What taxation without representation do we have today?
>>> >
>>> Primarily sin taxes. People who don't participate in an activity
>>> taxing people who do.
>>
>> That tax is passed by elected representatives, and signed by an elected
>> executive.
>>
>>> Smokes come to mind but the the best example is property tax on
>>> out-of-state property.
>>
>> I don't know of any state that taxes property in another state.
>>
>I live in MN lakes country where about 2/3 of the property is seasonal.
>Those of us who live here all year get a "homestead exemption" which reduces
>our property tax by 50%. Moreover, as MN residents we get a percentage of
>that remainder back from the state. Non resident's don't qualify. Neat,
>huh? We make the rules, they maintain the roads. Is this a great world or
>what?

Well, you can only be a resident of one state. Even though the
properties are seasonally used, it doesn't mean the owner can't be a
resident of MN and vote. Of course, if he owns property in another
state, he can't be a voting resident there. The property tax does
create a situation where one could be taxed without representation in
that district. Of course, the same is true with sales tax.

Gordon McGrew

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:00:04 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <49f9b915$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
> "Was Istoben" <entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:
>
>> > the area where you live, you're paying taxes that you weren't
>> > represented for, but it's your choice to buy there.
>> >
>> Exactly. Whenever one chooses to reside in the legal jurisdiction of
>> another they find themselves taxed without representation, as was the
>> case when North America was divided into legal jurisdictions of
>> England, France and Spain.
>
>No, not like that case. In the case of the colonists, they were taxed
>where they lived by a government that was elsewhere, and that they had
>no representation in. In the case of property tax that we're
>discussing, the property is not where they live.

Another distinction is that the part-time MN residents could declare
that their primary residence and vote there even if they can't qualify
for the exemption. Another point is that the taxes being paid by the
part time residents are paying for roads and other infrastructure
where they own property. A lot different from having all the money go
some place you may never have been.

Was' real gripe about lack of representation should be that his
Governor is refusing to seat his elected Senator.

>
>About the only people in the United States who have a legitimate claim
>of taxation without representation are those who live in Washington DC.
>
>> Note that in my property tax example those living outside the
>> jurisdiction aren't simply paying the same tax those who live within
>> the jurisdiction but instead more than twice as much. It's quite a
>> stretch to compare that with non-residents and residents paying the
>> same sales tax.
>
>So get rid of the homestead exemption.

Well, assuming it isn't a new rule, the owners knew/should have known
about it when they bought the property.

Was Istoben

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:h7okv4h29m4rnant1mlmlmd3rihk7ctmrp@4ax.com...
> Was' real gripe about lack of representation should be that his
> Governor is refusing to seat his elected Senator.
>
School is out on what Pawlenty will do since he can't bless Franken until
the appeals process has run it's course. He wants to be the Republican
presidential candidate in 2012 so he just might say he's waiting to see if
Coleman appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. If he does that, he will have
served his last term as anything in Minnesota. We're sick of this crap.