Voting and Property Ownership

[BenTheMan]

So, I think this is the appropriate place to start this thread, as there is very little political science discussed in the Politics forum.

So I got my Ohio ballot today, and there are a few issues on the ballot which involve raising property taxes. Specifically, there's an initiative to provide funding for science and technology education in the school system, an initiative for more public parks, an initiative for new garbage trucks, something for new roads, something for better sewers, etc. etc. The proposed method to pay for these projects is to increase the property taxes.

Now, let's suppose I vote for all of these initiatives---this would increase property taxes by about 1.5%. I don't know from the top of my head whether or not the taxes increase in Ohio to keep up with inflation, but I imagine they do. If they don't, then an increase of 1.5% is probably only a little ahead of inflation.

I own no property in Ohio, but I am an Ohio resident. As a resident, I am entitled to vote on bond issues which have a direct effect on the taxes that property owners pay. One can be quick to point out that I DO rent an apartment in Ohio, and that the rent I pay, in effect, pays the property taxes of my landlords. But I can imagine a situation where someone who had absolutely no vested interest could vote---specifically, homeless people have voting rights in America.

The question: Given that some parties pay no property taxes, is it fair that those parties can vote to raise property taxes?

 

[James R]

Well, if it is fair for people who earn $1 million a year to vote on how the poor should be taxed, then it stands to reason that it is fair that the poor should be able to vote on how the rich are taxed. That's democracy.

 

[Asguard]

Ben, there is an example of this from SA. A proposal was made to alow ALL south Australian input into what the city council does because most people work in the CBD and currently only owners can vote.

I will point out to james that this isnt universal. In victoria for instance ONLY property owners can vote in council elections where as in SA renters can as well

 

[BenTheMan]

Well, if it is fair for people who earn $1 million a year to vote on how the poor should be taxed, then it stands to reason that it is fair that the poor should be able to vote on how the rich are taxed. That's democracy.

Maybe you can clarify. What type of tax would be targeted towards the poor that rich people wouldn't have to pay?

 

[iceaura]

Maybe you can clarify. What type of tax would be targeted towards the poor that rich people wouldn't have to pay?

Social Security.

It is not paid on income over 97k, and not paid on capital gains.

So people such as hedge fund managers - a couple of whom received more than one billion dollars last year in income, structured as capital gains - pay no Social Security.

And the top 20% of the economy pay a much lower percentage of their income to SS.

Yet they not only can vote on it, they can contribute large sums of money to political efforts to "reform" it.

Local sales taxes.

Rich people have much more control over where and how they purchase things.

 

[BenTheMan]

It is not paid on income over 97k, and not paid on capital gains.

I'm not familiar with the top tax bracket and Social Security benefits. Do those people in this income bracket receive Social Security benefits?

So people such as hedge fund managers - a couple of whom received more than one billion dollars last year in income, structured as capital gains - pay no Social Security.

So the 28% Capital Gains tax isn't enough?

And the top 20% of the economy pay a much lower percentage of their income to SS.

Of course they do.

Rich people have much more control over where and how they purchase things.

Perhaps this is a good example, however, it seems reasonable to expect that even the rich would spend the bulk of their money locally.

 

[James R]

Maybe you can clarify. What type of tax would be targeted towards the poor that rich people wouldn't have to pay?

Well, I'll give you an example of a tax which impacts the poor more than the rich - an Australian example.

In Australia, we have a Goods and Services tax, which is a flat tax of 10% on most consumer purchases. That means that if you buy a screwdriver at the local hardware store, an extra 10% is added to the price and goes to the government. If you buy a jar of olives, then it costs 10% more than it would without the tax, etc.

Now, what is the impact of this tax on the rich and the poor? The rich pay a larger gross amount of GST, simply because they have more discretionary spending. But, as a percentage of their gross income, the GST paid by the rich is may be significantly less than what is paid by the less well off.

One argument is that the rich choose to pay the GST, mostly by buying things that are not necessities, but luxuries of life. On the other hand, the poor have no choice but to pay the GST on many necessities.

I should say that there are laws in place in Australia designed to ameliorate the effect of the GST on the poor. They are necessary specifically because, without them, the impact of this tax on the poor would be far greater than on the rich.

 

[quadraphonics]

But I can imagine a situation where someone who had absolutely no vested interest could vote---specifically, homeless people have voting rights in America.

You needn't imagine anything so marginal as that. There are manifold examples of taxes levied in the United States that pass on the weight of people who know that they will never, ever have to pay them. The taxes taxes on tobacco, for example, which get added to on a near-yearly basis. These schemes use a politically marginalized minority (here, smokers) as a piggy-bank at the mercy of the rest of society. Now, it's one thing to use tobacco tax revenue to fund, say, public health care, as otherwise the non-smokers pay for the medical bills of the smokers, but the tax revenue is not generally confined in that way.

Moreover, I've heard it argued that while unhealthy people have higher yearly medical expenses, their lifetime medical expenses are actually much lower than those of healthy people, due to their shorter lifespans. This was specifically discussed in the context of obesity, but it seems like it should apply to smoking as well. If it does, then there is no justification whatsoever for the ransom that smokers are forced to pay to everyone else.

 

[BenTheMan]

Well, I'll give you an example of a tax which impacts the poor more than the rich - an Australian example.

In Australia, we have a Goods and Services tax, which is a flat tax of 10% on most consumer purchases. That means that if you buy a screwdriver at the local hardware store, an extra 10% is added to the price and goes to the government. If you buy a jar of olives, then it costs 10% more than it would without the tax, etc.

Now, what is the impact of this tax on the rich and the poor? The rich pay a larger gross amount of GST, simply because they have more discretionary spending. But, as a percentage of their gross income, the GST paid by the rich is may be significantly less than what is paid by the less well off.

One argument is that the rich choose to pay the GST, mostly by buying things that are not necessities, but luxuries of life. On the other hand, the poor have no choice but to pay the GST on many necessities.

I should say that there are laws in place in Australia designed to ameliorate the effect of the GST on the poor. They are necessary specifically because, without them, the impact of this tax on the poor would be far greater than on the rich.

Ok sure. The rich are affected LESS, but they're still affected.

Let's not make this about rich and poor. Quad's example is a good one, as is ice's example of Social Security.

I don't care about rich vs. poor---I just want to know if this is fair. "That's democracy" is a great tongue-in-cheek response, but it's not the way to end a discussion The example I picked before (and, admittedly the title of the thread) happened to frame the discussion in that way---this is entirely my fault.

 

[Asguard]

Ben the problem in restricting voting to a specific group is that it restricts it from those who wish to enter that group or who are indirectly effected by changes to that group

For instance if you restrict voting to property owners how much surport are you going to be giving to renters and the homeless in order to GET them into the home owner group?

None, the policies put out will be to benifit the group who are alowed to vote (in general) and this has a detremental effect on sociaty as a whole

To give you an example say anyone convicted of a crime was deregistered to vote for 20 years (ANY CRIME) and homosexuality was still a crime. How would homosexuals have brought about the sorts of political changes which removed homosexuality from the crimes act?

 

[BenTheMan]

Ben the problem in restricting voting to a specific group is that it restricts it from those who wish to enter that group or who are indirectly effected by changes to that group

For instance if you restrict voting to property owners how much surport are you going to be giving to renters and the homeless in order to GET them into the home owner group?

None, the policies put out will be to benifit the group who are alowed to vote (in general) and this has a detremental effect on sociaty as a whole

To give you an example say anyone convicted of a crime was deregistered to vote for 20 years (ANY CRIME) and homosexuality was still a crime. How would homosexuals have brought about the sorts of political changes which removed homosexuality from the crimes act?

It doesn't seem to me that this is an issue. You're saying, I think, that the fact that homeless people can't vote on policies which only affect home owners somehow prevents them from owning homes? I hardly see how this is the case: maybe you'd like to make the comparisson more clear, because your example confuses me.

In this case, you seem to be implying that it is only gay people who vote for gay issues? We'll both agree that the majority of people in America (I don't know about Australia...heh heh heh) aren't gay. The change that has been brought about has been brought about via activism of gay interest groups, and it is largely the non-gay people going to the polls that has allowed the sorts of social change you're talking about. That is, you don't have to be gay to think that gay people deserve certain rights.

Another counter example is women's suffrage: clearly, it wasn't women voting to give women the right to vote---it was men who sympathized with their cause.

 

[Asguard]

i agree with you on that but you DONT think if you disenfrancise a group that it leads to abuses against that group?

Ok so the tax is collected from home owners but say some of the money is used to surport a homeless shelter. Is it accptable to say that "well you dont pay the tax, so what your poor, you cant have an input, so stave"

The whole concept of moden democrasy was designed to get away from the people with money making all the decisions and laws for those who didnt have money. It gave the power to the whole population rather than those ritch enough to BUY power

I know some Americans here (this is how you look from your posts so dont blame me if you dont like the assement) would prefer to go back to a two or three tierd system but anyone who has studied history knows this is symply the wrong way to go