Student voting

JONOV

Old Mossy Horns
Give me an example of an issue you’re hypothesizing.
I live in Raleigh. I own a rental in Wilmington. Should I be able to vote in the local New Hanover County/Wilmington City elections, and should my tenants be denied that vote?
 

alt1001

Old Mossy Horns
Same with military. Vote where you pay property taxes.

There are people who claim residency in one state, own a home in 2 others and have license plates from a 3rd. That's going to be awfully tricky. :)

Not that it matters anyway, the 24th amendment sort of settles that for us and the SCOTUS ruling in Symm v. US settled the student debate 40 years ago.
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
There are people who claim residency in one state, own a home in 2 others and have license plates from a 3rd. That's going to be awfully tricky. :)

Not that it matters anyway, the 24th amendment sort of settles that for us and the SCOTUS ruling in Symm v. US settled the student debate 40 years ago.

I wasn’t trying to cite case law.

I was suggesting how I think it should be. Too many people affecting policy with no investment.
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
I live in Raleigh. I own a rental in Wilmington. Should I be able to vote in the local New Hanover County/Wilmington City elections, and should my tenants be denied that vote?

Let me throw it back at you.

Your renters have 8 kids. A school bond referendum comes up that would add $0.20/$1000 to property tax.

See any rub?
 

alt1001

Old Mossy Horns
Let me throw it back at you.

Your renters have 8 kids. A school bond referendum comes up that would add $0.20/$1000 to property tax.

See any rub?

On the contrary I saw a lot of 'vested' people in a tourist community strike down a referendum for a small local use & sales tax increase that would have siphoned a lot of revenue out of tourists rather than just the locals. That county is now in discussions to raise their property taxes.

What's wrong or right is of opinion but it's an interesting series of events.
 

Firedog

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
I think we may be making it more complicated than need be.. now that we have voter ID (once it works its way through the courts and is upheld as i expect it to be) you simply say your voter registration and ID addresses must match. A student changes their DL they vote in the college town if not they don't

Not likely to happen but it is a simple solution to the issue.

As for Chapel Hill, nothing much would change if UNCheat students could not vote in the county.. the population center is still Crapel Hell and Carboro.. they will still control the politics in the county (though with the loss of farm land north of there to subdivisions, that population center statement is changing some)
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
. now that we have voter ID (once it works its way through the courts and is upheld as i expect it to be) you simply say your voter registration and ID addresses must match. A student changes their DL they vote in the college town if not they don't

This right here.
 

JONOV

Old Mossy Horns
Let me throw it back at you.

Your renters have 8 kids. A school bond referendum comes up that would add $0.20/$1000 to property tax.

See any rub?
no, I don't. It all seems the same to me. 8 kids or 1 kid. And I can’t see the difference between a renter and a homeowner in that situation anyway.

Property taxes get passed on to the renter. Just about everywhere but NYC and San Francisco the rent is determined by the market.

If you want to see what it ends up looking like, look at a townhouse community with a high percentage of renters who can’t participate in the HOA. It turns into a dump and it ruins it for resident homeowners to boot.
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
If 5 people go into a room, with one carrying $70, one carrying $30 and three carrying $0....... it’s not fair to let all 5 vote on how to spend the $100.

There’s a word for what happens, when you allow this.
 

Soilman

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Maybe country logic don't make good since to some of you, but if a person ain't responsible enough to be able to buy and own a gun at 18, then they darned sure ain't responsible enough to vote at 16. Allowing the latter is FAR more dangerous to the country than allowing the former.
 

ECU_Pirate

Banned
Maybe country logic don't make good since to some of you, but if a person ain't responsible enough to be able to buy and own a gun at 18, then they darned sure ain't responsible enough to vote at 16. Allowing the latter is FAR more dangerous to the country than allowing the former.

If they aren't responsible enough to drink until 21 should they own a gun before then?

I think drinking age should be 18. Just playing devil's advocate.
 

JONOV

Old Mossy Horns
If 5 people go into a room, with one carrying $70, one carrying $30 and three carrying $0....... it’s not fair to let all 5 vote on how to spend the $100.

There’s a word for what happens, when you allow this.
Its called Democracy. Or when you elect people to decide how its spent, a Republic.
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Its called Democracy. Or when you elect people to decide how its spent, a Republic.

Which is why democracy is flawed.

My suggestion isn’t a hard concept to grasp. If you have nothing invested, you don’t get to dictate policy.
 

ECU_Pirate

Banned
What about a billionaire who has much much more invested than your typical person. What if they said that their vote should count 5 times as much because they pay way more than you in taxes? To them you might as well contribute nothing.
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
What about a billionaire who has much much more invested than your typical person. What if they said that their vote should count 5 times as much because they pay way more than you in taxes? To them you might as well contribute nothing.

So, we agree that those with nothing invested get no say?

Let’s find a starting point.
 

JONOV

Old Mossy Horns
Which is why democracy is flawed.

My suggestion isn’t a hard concept to grasp. If you have nothing invested, you don’t get to dictate policy.
What's the minimum level of investment? How rich do you have to be to get to dictate policy?

What about an 18 year old PFC? He's got nothing invested. What about the guy working at Wal-Mart? He isn't making much, likely has nothing "Invested," is he denied a vote? Or is it just entitled snowflakes that are the only ones with little invested?

If I own 100 acres and have a 4000 sf home, do I get to dictate more than a working man with a 3 bed house on a 1/4 acre lot?
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
What's the minimum level of investment? How rich do you have to be to get to dictate policy?

What about an 18 year old PFC? He's got nothing invested. What about the guy working at Wal-Mart? He isn't making much, likely has nothing "Invested," is he denied a vote? Or is it just entitled snowflakes that are the only ones with little invested?

If I own 100 acres and have a 4000 sf home, do I get to dictate more than a working man with a 3 bed house on a 1/4 acre lot?

Armed forces exemption (non fiscal policy).

My plan is pretty simple. If you’re paying property taxes, you’re vested.

I’ll spin this right back at you. I want you to sell me on why people with no investment should be allowed to dictate fiscal policy.
 

Soilman

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
If they aren't responsible enough to drink until 21 should they own a gun before then?

I think drinking age should be 18. Just playing devil's advocate.
The drinking age USED to be 18. I was among one of the last to be legal to drink at 18.
My opinion is this. You are either a FULL adult or you are not an "adult" An adult should have the right to vote, drink and by firearms at the same age...period.
 

Soilman

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Just my opinion, but anyone in the armed forces absolutely does have an investment in this country. Their investment is putting their life on the line!
 

alt1001

Old Mossy Horns
I’ll spin this right back at you. I want you to sell me on why people with no investment should be allowed to dictate fiscal policy.

Nearly everyone pays taxes in some form or fashion, property be damned. Hell, if you buy bread and milk, you pay taxes. I think that was his question, where do you draw the line? Is it property taxes and property taxes alone that = vested?
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Nearly everyone pays taxes in some form or fashion, property be damned. Hell, if you buy bread and milk, you pay taxes. I think that was his question, where do you draw the line? Is it property taxes and property taxes alone that = vested?

Let’s cut through the :donk:donk:donk:donk:donk:donk:donk:donk scenarios and hypotheticals.

Sell me on why someone with nothing vested should dictate fiscal policy.

I see “those other taxes” as the cost of doing business in the US (or any city or municipality). People who own real property are invested in the community/state/country.

The “47%” will become 51%....then more. At that point, it’s over. Tell me, then, if you think they should have had an equal say.
 

JONOV

Old Mossy Horns
Armed forces exemption (non fiscal policy).

My plan is pretty simple. If you’re paying property taxes, you’re vested.

I’ll spin this right back at you. I want you to sell me on why people with no investment should be allowed to dictate fiscal policy.
Your definition of "vested" is wrong. If you live somewhere, you're vested. You're the one that has to walk down the sidewalk, and drive the roads, and breathe the air and drink the water. You're the one being protected by the police and the fire department. You're the one working there, so you'll be affected by the local economy and job market.

You imply that renters don't pay property taxes. They do. They just don't write the check. If they didn't, the landlord wouldn't be in business.

Why property taxes? What makes them so superior? So a Senior Citizen living in a senior apartment complex shouldn't vote? Or someone living an working in a community that rents and takes the bus?

You keep saying, "No Investment." The term is ridiculous. Why should a childless person be allowed to vote for a school bond referendum? After all, they have no investment in the schools.

Why should I, a homeowner, have my local governance decided by the guy that owns and rents out the house next door? He doesn't have the same interests as people that live there, whether or not they rent or own.

The fiscal interests of property owners aren't superior to the interests of the local citizenry. This isn't a hypothetical, this is something I've seen firsthand: An HOA controlled by absentee landlords. The place fell apart as investors bought more and more homes. Their not invested, they don't care about how the place looks, just keep the costs low.
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Your definition of "vested" is wrong. If you live somewhere, you're vested. You're the one that has to walk down the sidewalk, and drive the roads, and breathe the air and drink the water. You're the one being protected by the police and the fire department. You're the one working there, so you'll be affected by the local economy and job market.

You imply that renters don't pay property taxes. They do. They just don't write the check. If they didn't, the landlord wouldn't be in business.

Why property taxes? What makes them so superior? So a Senior Citizen living in a senior apartment complex shouldn't vote? Or someone living an working in a community that rents and takes the bus?

You keep saying, "No Investment." The term is ridiculous. Why should a childless person be allowed to vote for a school bond referendum? After all, they have no investment in the schools.

Why should I, a homeowner, have my local governance decided by the guy that owns and rents out the house next door? He doesn't have the same interests as people that live there, whether or not they rent or own.

The fiscal interests of property owners aren't superior to the interests of the local citizenry. This isn't a hypothetical, this is something I've seen firsthand: An HOA controlled by absentee landlords. The place fell apart as investors bought more and more homes. Their not invested, they don't care about how the place looks, just keep the costs low.

Tell me again how a renter pays property taxes. Are you implying it’s inclufed in their rent?

No.

How in the world is an absentee landlord not interested in maintaining his property’s value?
 

alt1001

Old Mossy Horns
Let’s cut through the :donk:donk:donk:donk:donk:donk:donk:donk scenarios and hypotheticals.

Sell me on why someone with nothing vested should dictate fiscal policy.

I see “those other taxes” as the cost of doing business in the US (or any city or municipality). People who own real property are invested in the community/state/country.

The “47%” will become 51%....then more. At that point, it’s over. Tell me, then, if you think they should have had an equal say.

There's the flaw with your argument. That 'cost of doing business' is subject to change depending on who is elected, even at the local level. Why should even those folks who own no property yet are subject to the policy of said elected officials, have no say?
 

ECU_Pirate

Banned
The drinking age USED to be 18. I was among one of the last to be legal to drink at 18.
My opinion is this. You are either a FULL adult or you are not an "adult" An adult should have the right to vote, drink and by firearms at the same age...period.

Agree. Thats why my dad always told me i could drink when i turn 18. Said if i could die for my country i could have a beer.
 

JONOV

Old Mossy Horns
Tell me again how a renter pays property taxes. Are you implying it’s inclufed in their rent?
I'm implying that most folks are in the landlording business to make money. All of their expenses are "included" in the rent or they'd go out of business.

Would you imply that anyone invests in property for any reason other than making money?
How in the world is an absentee landlord not interested in maintaining his property’s value?
His goal is to maximize ROI/Cashflow. Long term value is only a concern if it diminishes so badly that it impedes his ability to maintain whatever class of tenant/rent he desires. Selling is a secondary, or terciary, consideration, for a lot of reasons, many but not all of which are entrenched in our tax code. For example, If I buy my home for $150K, and the home is worth $100 and the land is worth $50K, and sell it 10 years later for $400K, I pay no taxes. If a Landlord does that, he pays taxes on $373K of that income unless he rolls it into another property.

"[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind" -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Chapter 11

I don't hate landlords or REI folks. Not at all. I just don't understand why you think they should be able to influence policy and government in a different way than the owner of the Chevy Dealership and the Banker and the Sawmill do.

And you still haven't explained why paying property taxes should be a basis for suffrage over other forms of taxes (income, for example.)
 

DBCooper

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
I'm implying that most folks are in the landlording business to make money. All of their expenses are "included" in the rent or they'd go out of business.

Would you imply that anyone invests in property for any reason other than making money?

His goal is to maximize ROI/Cashflow. Long term value is only a concern if it diminishes so badly that it impedes his ability to maintain whatever class of tenant/rent he desires. Selling is a secondary, or terciary, consideration, for a lot of reasons, many but not all of which are entrenched in our tax code. For example, If I buy my home for $150K, and the home is worth $100 and the land is worth $50K, and sell it 10 years later for $400K, I pay no taxes. If a Landlord does that, he pays taxes on $373K of that income unless he rolls it into another property.

"[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind" -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Chapter 11

I don't hate landlords or REI folks. Not at all. I just don't understand why you think they should be able to influence policy and government in a different way than the owner of the Chevy Dealership and the Banker and the Sawmill do.

And you still haven't explained why paying property taxes should be a basis for suffrage over other forms of taxes (income, for example.)

Would you rather we base it on those who pay income taxes?

Maybe I could be swayed.
 
Top