From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 30-Mar-15 00:16, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
      
   >>>Many, many years ago government got away from just taxing real   
   >>>estate and taxed income and commerce.  Generally, these were   
   >>>percentage--not flat fee taxes--so they more money one earned or   
   >>>spent, the more in taxes they paid.  This was seen to be more   
   >>>fair.   
      
   >>By landowners, yeah. By tenants, not so much.   
      
   >Landowners just pass on property taxes to their tenants anyway, so there   
   >is no reason for them to prefer any other form of tax--unless they have   
   >no tenants, i.e. they're speculators.   
      
   In my state, whenever they argue that there should be more state funding   
   for schools, that means a shift from property tax support to income tax   
   support because the state hasn't levied property taxes in decades (and   
   isn't likely to in future).   
      
   So, if schools improve, tenants pay twice: Their rent rises, because   
   better schools mean higher land value. Part of the rent goes toward   
   the land tax portion of the real estate tax (which is difficult to   
   pass on the tenant and generally isn't); the building tax portion of   
   the real estate tax is paid in part by the tenant and in part in reduced   
   net income by the landlord.   
      
   But the tenant pays a second time in higher income taxes.   
      
   The landlord got a free rent increase from the school improvement!   
      
   I'm piggybacking on something Stephen wrote to make a point to hancock.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)