Are We Headed For Another Housing Crash ??

[JC5123]

JC isn't going to get any flack from me about "property requirement" for voting.  Most of the former colonies not only reinstated it after the revolution, but increased the limit from L50 to L100 .
How ever, that was the primary cause of Shay's rebellion in Mass, so do not consider it unless you are prepared to machine gun the lower classes to enforce it.

I wasn't thinking a property requirement, more of a tax burden requirement. Basically, if you do not pay income taxes, then no vote. Why should someone not contributing to the system be allowed a decision in it. If you don't like it, get off of welfare and pay taxes. Simple as that. Require that you bring in your tax forms to vote, not only does it solve the Voter I.D. problem, but holding your tax bill in the booth would serve as a reminder to vote smart.

[billt]

Why should someone not contributing to the system be allowed a decision in it.

They shouldn't. Because they have we are now coddling a $20 trillion dollar debt.

[tombogan03884]

I wasn't thinking a property requirement, more of a tax burden requirement. Basically, if you do not pay income taxes, then no vote. Why should someone not contributing to the system be allowed a decision in it. If you don't like it, get off of welfare and pay taxes. Simple as that. Require that you bring in your tax forms to vote, not only does it solve the Voter I.D. problem, but holding your tax bill in the booth would serve as a reminder to vote smart.

Understood, but "property requirement" is the technical name of the concept of restricting the vote to those actually invested in paying for it. With so many living in rental properties  with little "real property" going by tax liability would be the only practical method.

[billt]

I look at it the same way a corporation does. Money decisions are voted on by the Board Of Directors, not the rank and file workers. Many on these boards are large stockholders, and have a vested interest in the financial well being of the company. If the workers voted, all they would be concerned with is a paycheck and benefits. Things like purchasing new equipment in order to remain competitive in the long term, would not concern or interest them. Especially if it meant any type of sacrifice on their part. It's all part of the hooray for me, and screw everyone else, attitude.

I've watched too many companies go down the tubes with that type of thinking. And this country will be no different. It's a matter of when, not if.

[billt]

With so many living in rental properties  with little "real property" going by tax liability would be the only practical method.

Look at how many people today own little to nothing. They either rent, or else are paying nothing but interest on a mortgage, and don't have enough equity to break even, after paying the real estate sales commission, and come out of the deal with anything if they sold. For example, several lending institutions are right back to lending money with as little as 3% down with marginal credit scores. If they had to sell shortly after the sale they couldn't pay off the loan, because the commission is usually 6%+ after title insurance and other sales related expenses. This is what crashed the housing market in 2008. "No skin in the game".

Most lease, (rent), their cars. And lately many are "renting to own" their home furnishings because they have no money to purchase them, and their credit is damaged, or all used up. (Places like "Rent-A-Center" and "Aaron's" cater to these types). Subtract the credit card debt most have piled up, and if they were to attempt to liquidate their assets and pay off their liabilities, most couldn't do it. They would be homeless in the street owning nothing but debt.

Now put these idiots into a voting booth, and who's handle do you think they're going to pull? They'll go communist every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. This is irreversible because the most difficult thing any person can do in their lifetime, is to accumulate wealth in any amount that allows them to be financially independent. Without receiving any government assistance. Today we've got over 1/3rd of the nation in this position. (105 million+ people). Sooner or later the bubble is going to pop. The only thing idiots can do well is destroy economies because they are all take, and no one gives. And as long as the communists believe the top 1% can support the remaining 99%, none of this foolishness will change.

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

As the talk about property and taxes and voting have been going around it brings back old headaches of how to be fair to both sides.  I feel that property taxes often get increased through levy by the popular vote of renters who do not understand how it affects them.  Then they scream when their rent goes up, and due to many factors landlords have a hard time covering other rising costs.  I face this in managing my Mother-in-law's farm land.  I have been raising the rent between 2% and 4% each year for the past six years just to cover increasing taxes.  We have also incurred some maintenance costs that crop yields and pricing do not support, so we have been eating it for now.

What would be fair?  Maybe renters should pay the property taxes direct.  Let them realize that their skin is in the game when they vote.

[billt]

As the talk about property and taxes and voting have been going around it brings back old headaches of how to be fair to both sides.  I feel that property taxes often get increased through levy by the popular vote of renters who do not understand how it affects them.  Then they scream when their rent goes up, and due to many factors landlords have a hard time covering other rising costs.  I face this in managing my Mother-in-law's farm land.  I have been raising the rent between 2% and 4% each year for the past six years just to cover increasing taxes.  We have also incurred some maintenance costs that crop yields and pricing do not support, so we have been eating it for now.

What would be fair?  Maybe renters should pay the property taxes direct.  Let them realize that their skin is in the game when they vote.

Your post reminds me of something I should have mentioned in the first paragraph of my post. Even though someone purchases a home with little to nothing down, and has virtually no equity, they still are paying property taxes. Therefore they are more deserving of casting a vote, than a renter who pays zero in said taxes.

[JC5123]

I really don't give a damn about what is fair for those who are not contributing to the cost of government. I am talking about people who are are means tested gov't assistance, people who get more money back on their taxes than they payed in. These are the people that should not have a vote. States and municipalities may want to structure things differently, and they have every ability to do so, however you should not have a say in the FEDERAL government if you are not paying for it.

[tombogan03884]

I really don't give a damn about what is fair for those who are not contributing to the cost of government.

Neither did the writers of the Constitution. As I've said before, the Constitution was never intended to be fair to everybody. It was intended to promote "Life, Liberty, and Property". while screwing as few as possible. But as they were writing it they knew some would still wind up screwed.
Their opinion was the greatest good, life's a bitch , deal with it.

By the way BillT, if you have not paid royalties for use of the mo0nkey selfie you better be careful.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/06/monkey_selfie_who_owns_the_copyright.html

[billt]

I really don't give a damn about what is fair for those who are not contributing to the cost of government. I am talking about people who are are means tested gov't assistance, people who get more money back on their taxes than they payed in. These are the people that should not have a vote. States and municipalities may want to structure things differently, and they have every ability to do so, however you should not have a say in the FEDERAL government if you are not paying for it.

That would never fly, as the blacks would immediately start screaming racial inequality. Because most of them would not qualify to vote under those circumstances. It shouldn't matter because they don't. But it does in today's idiotic world. They already cry how "unfair" it is there are a higher percentage of them locked up in the prison system. And people are listening to them.

 If you took away their "right to vote" based on the fact they're not worth a $h!t, they'd be screaming bloody murder..... Along with the entire Democratic Party. They complain because we want them to have voters identification cards. Now you also expect them to have 2 Nickels to rub together? We are long past applying common sense to this entire matter.