In the News today

[getsome]

The paper did an interview today with the leader/spokesman of the Occupy Atlanta Protest "Tim Frazen" 34 years old and hanging out with a bunch of 20 something year old college students for two weeks in Atlanta's Woodruff Park for some reason...

They asked him some basic questions about the protest and if he and his pals way of thinking is the future then we are in big trouble boys and girls...Here are some sample questions....

Question: What exactly do you want?
Answer: I want a country where we don't have all the wealth consolidated to the point where it muffles the voice of the people and prevents them from having a life that is just and fair...

Question: What does that mean:
Answer: Tim pointing to the Georgia Pacific Headquarters Tower, See that Georgia Pacific sign? Thats the Eye of Sauron looking down on humanity...

Question: What is the Eye of Sauron?
Answer: You know from the "Lord of the Rings"...I'm making an analogy...Thats the Koch Brothers up there (Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific and lots of other companies) They sit up there and look down on the little people out here and the only way for us to get our fair share is to force the Koch brothers to divest their overabundance and spread it around to the less fortunate people out here who need and deserve it...

Question: So you want higher taxes on the wealthy?
Answer: Of course, there should be laws made to use the Power of the Federal Government to take away the wealth of the super rich and redistribute it to those less fortunate that deserve a better more comfortable life....

Well the article goes on and they interview several more of the protesters and all had pretty much the same thing to say....

I am sad to say that if things continue with the way this next generation thinks and the people they will vote for in future elections then we will have to change the name of our once great country to "The United Socialist States of America"....This whole thing makes me want to

[jocko]

socialism at its best. sounds like exiles from GREECE..

seems for every one of the protestors who has a CLUE 10 are clueless. si if they have been camping ouot for over two weeks in these parks, does this mean the colleges let them out on leave to demonstarte, does it mean mom and ad are real proud that their sons and daughters have moved out ofthe basement and into the streets, or their boss said heh take a couple weeks off and go demonstrate, or can they spell JOBS.. We give um to much coverage on TV.

[yqtszhj]

FOOLS I tell you. Thats what they are.

[OldLincoln]

They seem to feel that way until it applies to distributing their wealth to those "less fortunate" then them.

[yqtszhj]

They have no idea how many jobs Georgia Pacific provide and they are good jobs. A mill worker with a few skills can make a fine wage in rural areas. They actually export products.

OK, I deleted all of my really critical comments. I'm done now.

[LMT42]

seems for every one of the protestors who has a CLUE 10 are clueless.

Hammer meet nail, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are a few that have a clue, and the below demands are just and reasonable; http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...editadd-so-th/

Let me be clear that I'm not for socialism or any redistribution of wealth. If you work hard and make a nice life for yourself, you deserve it! However, the issue isn't raising taxes on the rich, it's closing loopholes that allow the rich to keep from paying their share. When General Electric earns five billion in profits, and doesn't pay any taxes, there's something very wrong with the picture. IMO, we need to reenact Glass Steagall, get corporate money out of Washington, and rewrite the tax code. That would be a good start anyway.

[LaP]

About 15 - 20 years ago, a study was done on redistribution of wealth. The conclusion of the study summed it up this way:
Those that were wealthy before redistribution were likely to be rich after it also...and those that were poor would be poor afterwards also.

You can't redistribute intelligence. Just look at the "people" demonstrating on Wall Street. It they won the lottery today, they'd be broke by next week.

[O'Dell]

Hey Getsome, you left out the part where he said that if the Koch brothers didn't come across by 5:30 this afternoon they were going to levitate the Georgia Pacific building. I waited all afternoon to see that.

[tv_racin_fan]

Hammer meet nail, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are a few that have a clue, and the below demands are just and reasonable; http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...editadd-so-th/

Let me be clear that I'm not for socialism or any redistribution of wealth. If you work hard and make a nice life for yourself, you deserve it! However, the issue isn't raising taxes on the rich, it's closing loopholes that allow the rich to keep from paying their share. When General Electric earns five billion in profits, and doesn't pay any taxes, there's something very wrong with the picture. IMO, we need to reenact Glass Steagall, get corporate money out of Washington, and rewrite the tax code. That would be a good start anyway.

I would agree we need to rewrite the tax code. I would agree that Glass Steagal needs to be reenacted.

Do you know why GE did not pay any federal income taxes for the past two years and has some credit left for this year?

It's because their credit division lost billions a couple years back. You pay taxes on income not losses and as a business you get to carry those losses over for a couple of years.

Just the same I agree about getting rid of those tax deductions. Like the mortgage deduction, why should a renter have to subsidize someone with a mortgage? AND the mortgage deduction benefits the man with the $500k mortgage more than it does the man with the $75k mortgage (stick it to them rich guys!!). I love the term loophole for deductions. Lets get rid of that ole childcare loophole too.

The truth is everyone likes their deductions and hates the loopholes that they don't get. IF you bother to actually study the tax code you find that many of those deductions if not all phase out for the upper brackets.

I'm all for simplifying the code. Think everyone who earns an income should pay a little.

What about:
$0 to $5000 income = 1% federal income tax rate
$5001 to $10,000 income = 2% federal income tax rate
$10,001 to $15,000 income = 3% federal income tax rate
$15,001 to $20,000 income = 4% federal income tax rate
$20.001 to $25,000 income = 5% federal income tax rate
etc up to 35%

[JimBianchi]

TV,

You realize that renters with kids use our public schools for free?

We home owners, Here in Vegas that's 630,000 homes (46% of the families. Before the crash it was 52% or so) supporting the 2.2million people. More than half the valley lives in apartments, and by an large they have the same amount of children as everyone else. Renters use the schools for free. Even though we as a state are broke, we increased our expenditures for public schools, AGAIN! With our tax base shrinking (fewer homeowners), but more people here than 10 years ago. Gee I wonder who is leeching the system? RENTERS!

I say charge a property tax on RENTERS equal to the equivalent that we home owners pay. Go with square foot age. I pay $1400 a year on my 2100sq foot house. So your 800sqf apartment should be tax at $550 per year.

That will do it.

Not living within our means, not shrinking government, not being responsible, I say tax the rest of the people who don't pay property tax.

Also, tax the single mothers, you know the ones making less than poverty wage and supporting kids.

Yep, more taxes are the solution.

Nothing else makes sense.

[mr surveyor]

I don't know about Vegas, but in Texas Mr. Landlord pays property tax on his commercial rent property, and you can bet that cost is passed on to his renters. No doubt it's probably not the same amount per sq ft as the homeowner when all said and done.

[Rainman48314]

TV,

You realize that renters with kids use our public schools for free?

We home owners, Here in Vegas that's 630,000 homes (46% of the families. Before the crash it was 52% or so) supporting the 2.2million people. More than half the valley lives in apartments, and by an large they have the same amount of children as everyone else. Renters use the schools for free. Even though we as a state are broke, we increased our expenditures for public schools, AGAIN! With our tax base shrinking (fewer homeowners), but more people here than 10 years ago. Gee I wonder who is leeching the system? RENTERS!

I say charge a property tax on RENTERS equal to the equivalent that we home owners pay. Go with square foot age. I pay $1400 a year on my 2100sq foot house. So your 800sqf apartment should be tax at $550 per year.

That will do it.

Not living within our means, not shrinking government, not being responsible, I say tax the rest of the people who don't pay property tax.

Also, tax the single mothers, you know the ones making less than poverty wage and supporting kids.

Yep, more taxes are the solution.

Nothing else makes sense.

In Michigan, it is made very clear that RENTERS also pay real estate taxes. They do so in their rent. It just isn't spelled out. There is actually a formula for determining what percentage of rent is allocated as tax. It is used to calculateHomestead Property Tax Credits.

[jocko]

I understand ur points here but if u don't own the property why should u have to pay property tax on it. The owners of the propety pay the properety tax and certainly it is factored intot he price of the rent. Would it be any different for a multi story apartment complex. Just asking for this is thefirst I have ever readof anything like that . We certainly don't have that in Indiana. Now I could see a a rip off type tax on renters like most motels have with these "motel" taxes where the city gets maybe 12% tax on the price to occupants. It is not a property tax though and it has to bel isted separtely on ones bill.

Question: Who gets the property tax deduction then. The renter or land owner. as the renters tax I would think wold be paid like property taxes. (twice a year) and not monthly. I would still think the actual bill for the property would come to the owner for all bills etc and renters move on at will and I can't see a city messinbg around wity renters when they can go directly tothe owner for the tax money.

I guess it dpends if the glass if half full or half empty but I owned 3 peaces of rental property in my home town and I now yearly what my taxers were o those partials. so yes it was factored in with my rent price but not li9sted separtely as the rentor wasnot liable ofr the taxes, I WAS. Now a rentor cold e told that this rent price inclusdes my property taxes on the propery andmy insurance on the property etc and thatis why I have to get this price, makes sense, but the renter gets no property tax deduction althohg they are allowed I think 3K a year as a tax deduction but not any more than that..

[les strat]

My question is, why should we be taxed for our property that we paid taxes on when we bought it????? And when we sell it as well?

Just sayin.

[JimBianchi]

I don't know about Vegas, but in Texas Mr. Landlord pays property tax on his commercial rent property, and you can bet that cost is passed on to his renters. No doubt it's probably not the same amount per sq ft as the homeowner when all said and done.

Here in NV, the amount of property tax for multi-family structures is about 20% of what the same number of apartments would be if they were single family homes.

So while currently homes are cheap here, and first-time buyers are snapping up great deals, the tax base is shrinking because for every new home owner, there are three that stopped paying the taxes, mortgages and bills. The county has said there is a three year backlog for foreclosures and evictions. So if you stopped paying your bills today, you might not be actually be evicted for three years! There is no incentive to keep paying and people are taking advantage of that.

The main driver of this "stop payment" is of course falling home prices. My house is worth less today than it was when it was built in 1999. But I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. In ten years this place with be paid off and we will still be here. Real Estate is never a sure thing. You should buy a home to live in, not speculate for profit.

Let me clarify my early rant:

I hate taxes but I understand that for basic needs of a community, some taxes are needed. Taxing someone with additional taxes or new taxes is not the solution to our current budgetary problems. Shrinking government is.

Also taking away a very valuable tax incentive to homeowners is not helpful either. If you want to expand home ownership (thus expanding your tax base) you have keep incentives in place.

I am sorry if my previous late night rant did not clearly identify my sarcasm. More taxes will not solve our problem. Learning to live within our means as a nation will.