Ted Yoho Suggested Limiting Voting To Property Owners
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
No.
I can sell something no one wants for $.01, but it won't make anyone want it.
Demand has to be there first. You set price to what your customers are willing to pay and what positions you well against your competitors. Then build your businesses cost structure accordingly.
If you don't find that balance and adjust as the market and demand does, you don't stay in business long.
Well yeah sure.... But if 30% of everyone's costs suddenly disappeared wouldn't you recognize your competitors will lower prices?
I can tell you without question my firm would react that way because we know that's what our competitors will do.
That's probably why she quit. It was too painful watching any of the profits going to the people whose resources were being extracted. Can't have the people thinking they have any right to the commons.
You might want to look at the I&E sheets for a couple of companies. Yes, prices are not completely insensitive to costs; largely depending on the elasticity of demand in their industry. But I'm pretty sure price is far more sensitive to demand.
This makes me wonder-- how much taxes and how many property owners vote which way? It'd be interesting to know if only 40% of those that vote one way are property owners or if 70% of the individual taxes vote one way.
That would be a market condition that you would need to react to. My company would lower prices too.
Some in this thread are arguing that wouldn't happen.
My understanding has always been that property owners were smart enough to recoup the property taxes they pay on rental properties through the rents they collect. So basically, people who pay rent ARE paying the cost of those taxes. If, on the other hand, the landlords are just eating the property taxes as a loss, then the representative from Florida might have a point.
I'm sure rent does cover tax liability.
It still doesn't transfer property ownership away from the landlord.
Last edited:
It's encouraging when a con realizes that funneling more and more money to the "job creators" has nothing to do with creating jobs. There's hope.
Seriously, guys and gals, how much sense would YOU make if you had a name like Yoho?
In terms of the subject, a case can be made for limiting votes on bond issues funded by property taxes to people who are subject to paying them....but not a very good case, as the taxes are figured by the landlord when he decides how much to charge his renters.
You can have some interesting discussions about the basic philosophy. Robert Heinlein, for instance, has in several of his stories depicted a society where the franchise was limited to people who had given government service of some kind.
In terms of the subject, a case can be made for limiting votes on bond issues funded by property taxes to people who are subject to paying them....but not a very good case, as the taxes are figured by the landlord when he decides how much to charge his renters.
You can have some interesting discussions about the basic philosophy. Robert Heinlein, for instance, has in several of his stories depicted a society where the franchise was limited to people who had given government service of some kind.
"This guy" meaning Jude Law? WTF?This the guy that also said "no workeee, no can voteee"?Beats his dog and his wife?
Screw Yoho, if you're a US citizen you have the right to vote. Yoho would see that all the southern rednecks would no longer be able to vote.
Actually, I was pointing out how government inserting cost in the way of taxation, $15 hour minimum wage, forced healthcare policies etc. only has a negative impact on markets, inflation, wealth and the economy.
Big government is bad for you and me.
No.
Your comments regarding job creation had nothing to do with pricing either.
So, we can both spout random lines.
Yeah, that was weird. He posted something that made sense and now he's gone and denied he said it. It's the first time I've seen somebody backpedal from a good post.
As in for your Congressman or Senator, correct? And for your state's electoral college representatives, right? These are, after all, the people who represent your state. If you pay state taxes you should have a say in who represents your state.
And anybody who pays any federal tax can vote no matter what, right? I mean, we're not talking about restricting voting rights based on income -- we're talking about restricting voting rights based on taxes paid. Right?
I am suggesting that being a taxpayer should be a condition of being granted the right to vote in various elections.
Did you know that while illegal immigrants cannot vote in federal elections, they can vote in certain state and municipal elections?
Certainly, the sales tax thing would render this idea moot in Florida, but all states don't have sales tax. And for those states that only have income tax, well, then it's easy. If you didn't file a state income tax return, or pay property tax, then you're not a voter.
So anybody in the 45 states with sales taxes are fine. Of course, people in the five other states have all probably either bought a gallon of gas, an alcoholic drink, a cigarette, paid for car registration, or done something that involves tax, don't you think?
Again, why only count income tax? Seems odd that people who claim they're advocating for "taxpayers" to vote are actually advocating for your income to be the basis of voting. As I said earlier, it's ludicrous that in 2015 we're having this discussion at all, and I'm probably silly for engaging because the number of people radical enough to support this kind of idea is too low to worry about. But I am curious as to how anybody can justify requiring that people must have enough income, and few enough deductions, in order to vote.
I'm talking about having a vested interest in the community in which you vote. Should a drifter be able to vote because he happens to be in your town on election day? How about someone who lives a black market existence (e.g., selling drugs or sex and reporting no income and paying no tax to any government)? Why should that person get to vote?
Well there are no real federal elections. The federal government consists of representatives that are elected from within my state and electors to select a president and the electors are elected from within my state.
"Federal elections" are defined by the law linked below:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
As pointed out if you buy a gallon of gas you are paying taxes to the federal government, that's a vested interest.
If you signed up for selective service, that's a vested interest.
If you've done jury duty that's a vested interest.
If you've obeyed laws that's a vested interest as the laws apply to everyone, not just the property owners or the tax payers.
It would be extremely hard to go through life with no vested interest in the community. Even if you are going all the way to the federal level.
"Federal elections" are defined by the law linked below:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18 section:611 edition
No, that's voting for federal offices. . . that's not a federal election. In fact I don't believe they even used the term "federal election" just "federal office"
There are no real "federal elections"
Nit
Pick
The bottom line is, illegal aliens cannot vote in such elections, but states/municipalities CAN allow illegal aliens to vote for offices not specified in the above law.
So, why don't these people have a "vested interest"? I mean, I'm sure they bought a gallon of milk one time!
Nit
Pick
The bottom line is, illegal aliens cannot vote in such elections, but states/municipalities CAN allow illegal aliens to vote for offices not specified in the above law.
So, why don't these people have a "vested interest"? I mean, I'm sure they bought a gallon of milk one time!
They certainly do if they stay here.
They should only have the rights to three hots and a cot while awaiting deportation.
You don't seem to have a firm goal post here. First you said "taxpayer". Now it sounds as if you want to look at each individual person and decide whether or not they're worthy. Do you have a firm rule you can apply, or do we hire Santa Claus to give us a list of eligible voters?
I'm thinking of people who might exist without paying taxes. Someone who steals the identities of others to make a living might also qualify.
