Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Regular Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Hudson: quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
Illegals pay property taxes? Maybe some. Isn't that kind of stupid, to pay taxes on a house when you could be deported?
AFAIK, most illegal immigrants rent. You don't pay property taxes when you're renting. Sure, you're lining the pocket of someone who is paying taxes, but those taxes would be due whether or not the land owner has a tenant.
They pay gas tax and spending tax, and that's about all.
And if my ancestors came here illegally? That does not make me illegal. Not to mention that there were no such laws when my ancestors came to this country, but even if there were such laws then, I was born in this land and as such, by law, I am (more than a legal immigrant) A CITIZEN!
I know the trouble of the immigration system, having gone through every step with my wife, and it PISSES ME OFF that lawmakers are concerning themselves with appeasing the masses of illegal immigrants that are already here rather than fixing the broken system.
By law, illegally entering the U.S. or entering legally under false pretenses is grounds not for a warm welcome, but for expulsion and the denial of future applications. No one, being an illegal alien in this country, deserves "squatter's rights." Every one who has acted lawfully has a greater right to be here than every one who has acted unlawfully. But every spot filled here is one less we can admit later. So for all of you who WANT to come to the U.S., understand that the illegal immigrant is every bit as much your opposition as are the laws that restrict immigration.
"Amnesty" or "a path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants is contrary to the law, which rightfully penalizes and restricts from future entrance those who have entered illegally. And with the overflow of illegal immigrants already present and continuing to invade, the desire to ease the system is apparently lacking.
We have to deal with problem #1 first. We can't relax the laws while being flooded with illegal immigrants.
Someone needs to learn about cost accounting. Even if you rent, the renter pays the tax. It is already priced within the rent itself as a fixed cost. The Property owner pays the tax on behalf of the renters. This is the conduit principle in taxation. This is more true if you are renting a house/condo and not an apartment, but the same rule applies. The illegal immigration system is a by product of a failed immigration system. The disparity of the amount of visas available for foreign workers to the demand of foreign workers contributes to the problem. WE have a large number of foreign workers who are wanting and needing unskilled labor laws. Students who come here to go to school, graduate, and want to stay and work find it difficult to find an employer to sponsor them because of the complexity of the immigration laws. Those who need to come here as refugees or Asylum-seekers, come here illegally first and then adjust to legal status, but the process can take two or three years. And with the new directions, those types of cases have dropped dramatically because of the loose definitions on terrorist or terrorist supporter, including those who helped the US government in the past.
Someone needs to learn how to read. I never suggested that the cost of rent would not include the tax that the property owner would owe. But the property owner owes this tax regardless, even if no one is renting that property. To suggest that the property owner pays tax "on behalf of the renters" is like saying that the property owner pays the mortgage on behalf of the renters. As if the bank would not foreclose just because the property owner can't find a tenant. |
| |
|
Junior Member
|
quote: Originally posted by macyuhoo:
Our country was once a great nation but not anymore. The father and son Bush destroyed us. China's growing economic and military strength is alarming. They have already invaded the US economically. Now, they are even challenging the US in armed space race. No matter how we complain against the Chinese, all they need is to throw back the question to us: If you Americans can do it? Why can't the Chinese?
Tell me oh wise-knower-of-all, how one man is to make such changes that would advance the U.S. so far ahead of China, when we as a country cannot agree on illegal immigrants alone? Is the job of President so simplistic in nature that anyone could twist the opinions of the nation until they fused into one? What words of wisdom could one of such position impart on a nation so diverse as America and cause all to unite? As soon as you have this revelation, I shall no longer take into consideration your ignorance when I read your posts. By the way, the last time I remember this coming close to happening, we lost 5,000 people and were a little too busy to worry about China.
|
| |
|
Senior Member
|
Hey Gringo, next time you pull out your gun make sure there's bullet in it.
|
| |
|
Power Member
|
quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
Someone needs to learn how to read. I never suggested that the cost of rent would not include the tax that the property owner would owe. But the property owner owes this tax regardless, even if no one is renting that property.
To suggest that the property owner pays tax "on behalf of the renters" is like saying that the property owner pays the mortgage on behalf of the renters. As if the bank would not foreclose just because the property owner can't find a tenant.
NO, but you did allude that most illegals do not pay taxes, especially property taxes, didn't you. I pointed out that even with property taxes they pay through the landlord. The Landlord does have certain obligations, and for the most part, pay a higher tax than personal property owners, generally. And I was explaining the conduit principle to help prove my point. Now, before you go off again and start attempting to cite technicalities you know nothing about, you need to know that you are talking to an enrolled agent who has over 14 years experience. |
| |
|
Regular Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Hudson: quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
Someone needs to learn how to read. I never suggested that the cost of rent would not include the tax that the property owner would owe. But the property owner owes this tax regardless, even if no one is renting that property.
To suggest that the property owner pays tax "on behalf of the renters" is like saying that the property owner pays the mortgage on behalf of the renters. As if the bank would not foreclose just because the property owner can't find a tenant.
NO, but you did allude that most illegals do not pay taxes, especially property taxes, didn't you. I pointed out that even with property taxes they pay through the landlord. The Landlord does have certain obligations, and for the most part, pay a higher tax than personal property owners, generally. And I was explaining the conduit principle to help prove my point. Now, before you go off again and start attempting to cite technicalities you know nothing about, you need to know that you are talking to an enrolled agent who has over 14 years experience.
You didn't need to say that the property owner pays taxes. I said that. Like I said, you need to learn how to read. As I said, quote: Sure, you're lining the pocket of someone who is paying taxes, but those taxes would be due whether or not the land owner has a tenant.
And then read the part that the property owner is taxed whether or not they have tenants. So yes, the tenants do not directly pay taxes. The relationship between the two, however direct, is a broken one. And arguing authority by experience is not a proper argument. It only shows that you're arrogant, which is quite possibly why you were unable to read what I said in the first place. I exactly said that renters pay those who pay the taxes, which you then tried to school me on. So next time, before you go off on a tangent to "school" someone, read what they said first. |
| |
|
Power Member
|
quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
And then read the part that the property owner is taxed whether or not they have tenants. So yes, the tenants do not directly pay taxes. The relationship between the two, however direct, is a broken one.
And arguing authority by experience is not a proper argument. It only shows that you're arrogant, which is quite possibly why you were unable to read what I said in the first place. I exactly said that renters pay those who pay the taxes, which you then tried to school me on.
So next time, before you go off on a tangent to "school" someone, read what they said first.
So, you only consider the direct approach of one paying taxes, and do not include the indirect approach, hug. I have read your stateemnts and I have concluded from my porofessional experience, you are incorporating falicious arguments. The landlord, just like the grocery story, are the middleperson for the payment of the lax. There are certain obligations that a landlord and a lessee must adhere to. This is known as the conduit principle. And it is very convenient for a landlord to pay the tax on behalf of a lessee. But the problem is you are too dumb and stupid to understand a fundamental accounting principle, called the conduit principle. And by excluding that principle in your argument, you have just made yourself look even more dumbass. The landlord's responsibility in paying the tax is irrelevant, to some degree, on the landlord/lessee agreements. It is more convenient business wise just as grocery stores pay the sales tax on your behalf that they collected. |
| |
|
Power Member
|
Technicalities... Tax is a tax no matter who pays it as long as it is paid where owed. Period.
I am a proud heart-bleeding tree-hugging latte-sipping urban-dwelling elitist progressive liberal.
|
| |
|
Regular Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Hudson: quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
And then read the part that the property owner is taxed whether or not they have tenants. So yes, the tenants do not directly pay taxes. The relationship between the two, however direct, is a broken one.
And arguing authority by experience is not a proper argument. It only shows that you're arrogant, which is quite possibly why you were unable to read what I said in the first place. I exactly said that renters pay those who pay the taxes, which you then tried to school me on.
So next time, before you go off on a tangent to "school" someone, read what they said first.
So, you only consider the direct approach of one paying taxes, and do not include the indirect approach, hug. I have read your stateemnts and I have concluded from my porofessional experience, you are incorporating falicious arguments. The landlord, just like the grocery story, are the middleperson for the payment of the lax. There are certain obligations that a landlord and a lessee must adhere to. This is known as the conduit principle. And it is very convenient for a landlord to pay the tax on behalf of a lessee. But the problem is you are too dumb and stupid to understand a fundamental accounting principle, called the conduit principle. And by excluding that principle in your argument, you have just made yourself look even more dumbass. The landlord's responsibility in paying the tax is irrelevant, to some degree, on the landlord/lessee agreements. It is more convenient business wise just as grocery stores pay the sales tax on your behalf that they collected.
After graciously noting that you are the "porofessional" (did you mean "poorfessional"?) and that I am "too dumb" (as if claiming to be an accountant is of any use when you're telling someone they're stupid for not agreeing that 2 + 2 = 4 when in fact they never disagreed), you make an pretty lame analogy that doesn't work. Property tax is not comparable to sales tax because there does not need to be a sale to be taxed, which was one of my points I've been trying to make all along. No, I don't think you have read my statements. You still insist that I was ignoring the fact that the general cost of maintenance (including property tax) is not included in the rent. I never suggested such a thing. To top it off I'm going to call you on it. Bullsh-t! It sounds good and may even be justifiable to call it a "conduit principle", since the cost would no doubt be included in the renting price. But you said it's "a fundamental accounting principle, called the conduit principle". Either you're a poor (sorry, what's your job description again? all I got was "agent") or you're just full of ****. I've poked around a bit and found that the conduit principle is applied to taxation on trusts. "The conduit principle flows from the basic nature of a trust and the fact that trusts are not separate legal entities." By the definition of the conduit principle, when there are separate legal entities involved, the principle is not applicable. FYI: I might have taken your critique of my intelligence more seriously if you learned proper grammar and actually knew what you were talking about. But I'm generally not impressed by insults or BS. |
| |
|
Power Member
|
quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
After graciously noting that you are the "porofessional" (did you mean "poorfessional"?) and that I am "too dumb" (as if claiming to be an accountant is of any use when you're telling someone they're stupid for not agreeing that 2 + 2 = 4 when in fact they never disagreed), you make an pretty lame analogy that doesn't work. Property tax is not comparable to sales tax because there does not need to be a sale to be taxed, which was one of my points I've been trying to make all along.
No, I don't think you have read my statements. You still insist that I was ignoring the fact that the general cost of maintenance (including property tax) is not included in the rent. I never suggested such a thing.
To top it off I'm going to call you on it. Bullsh-t! It sounds good and may even be justifiable to call it a "conduit principle", since the cost would no doubt be included in the renting price. But you said it's "a fundamental accounting principle, called the conduit principle". Either you're a poor (sorry, what's your job description again? all I got was "agent") or you're just full of ****.
I've poked around a bit and found that the conduit principle is applied to taxation on trusts. "The conduit principle flows from the basic nature of a trust and the fact that trusts are not separate legal entities." By the definition of the conduit principle, when there are separate legal entities involved, the principle is not applicable.
FYI: I might have taken your critique of my intelligence more seriously if you learned proper grammar and actually knew what you were talking about. But I'm generally not impressed by insults or BS.
Well, good for you, you found an example of a conduit principle. Now, if you would be so kind and look up a conduit entity and learn a little bit more, you might see the same philosophy, but one always hopes. Here is your entire quote: quote: Illegals pay property taxes? Maybe some. Isn't that kind of stupid, to pay taxes on a house when you could be deported?
AFAIK, most illegal immigrants rent. You don't pay property taxes when you're renting. Sure, you're lining the pocket of someone who is paying taxes, but those taxes would be due whether or not the land owner has a tenant.
The only reasonable conclusion from your quote is that most illegals do not pay property taxes because they rent. You base this assumption on the sole notion that paying taxes must only come from someone which the tax is legally owed and paid, property owners in this instance. And this is where I am telling you that you are completely wrong. Anyone who rents pays a portion of the property taxes, indirectly. And if no one rents, then one can conclude from your analysis that the tax is not paid. Is that correct? The portion, via the rent, is the indirect tax being paid through the rent, or in other words being shifted. Now, lets take it further, shall we? Go to an business park or an office building. With the tenets there and leasing, do they pay property taxes? If you answer no, then you will be dumbstruck by those business owners that yes, they are payingthe tax. Here is what I was getting at: it really does not matter if, or when, the landlord, individual or company, pays the tax because of the different accounting methods and how the tax is shifted that has to be collected in the first place. This is what you have ignored in your post above and there is no other reasonable assumption one can make. And yet, you are exclusively choosing which distinct sections of my reply and ignoring the rest. And by the way, you are using the argument based on a study from the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute as well as the mantra from FAIRUS, numbersUSA, and other anti-immigrant sites that purposely state ideas that are easily accepted by the uneducated, like you. But for you, there is always barber college, dumbass. Source |
| |
|
Regular Member
|
what you use to call "illegal alien" are the 3-th nation in this land in remember of history of colonization's ....the 3-th nation must kill the second to steal them land ? and to send them to live in reservation ? the 1-st nation all ready live in apartheid .....in the "country of the free"
roco
|
| |
| Posts: 56 | Location: USA | Registered: 01-23-2007 | |
|
Regular Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Hudson:
The only reasonable conclusion from your quote is that most illegals do not pay property taxes because they rent. You base this assumption on the sole notion that paying taxes must only come from someone which the tax is legally owed and paid, property owners in this instance. And this is where I am telling you that you are completely wrong. Anyone who rents pays a portion of the property taxes, indirectly.
Do you often go around, telling people they're wrong and calling them dumbasses and then saying the same thing they said? quote:
And if no one rents, then one can conclude from your analysis that the tax is not paid. Is that correct?
If you understood English and read what I said then you would already have the answer. Hell, you even quoted it in your most recent post! Maybe I am a dumbass for continuing to argue with a sh*thead. |
| |
|
Power Member
|
quote: Originally posted by enjerth:
Do you often go around, telling people they're wrong and calling them dumbasses and then saying the same thing they said?
We are not saying the same thing. You have stated and argued, quote: You don't pay property taxes when you're renting.
I have stated and will continue to state that renters pay property taxes. It is irrelevant on who actually pays. We are not stating the same thing, PERIOD. |
| |
|
Senior Member
|
Maybe I can put an end to the argument. In New Jersey renters even get a tax refund "NJ Homestead Rebate" calculated and based on the amount of rent they have been paying through the year. Regards,
.....I may condemn what you say, but I will risk my life for that you may say it - Voltaire!
|
| |
|
Power Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
Maybe I can put an end to the argument.
In New Jersey renters even get a tax refund "NJ Homestead Rebate" calculated and based on the amount of rent they have been paying through the year.
Regards,
No, Enjerth will probably state, "But I really meant that renters do pay property taxes!"  |
| |
|
Regular Member
|
lets go back to the subject YOUR ANCESTORS WERE ILLEGAL
roco
|
| |
| Posts: 56 | Location: USA | Registered: 01-23-2007 | |
|
Regular Member
|
this discussion about tax become idiotic .....when YOU are illegal here
roco
|
| |
| Posts: 56 | Location: USA | Registered: 01-23-2007 | |
|
Senior Member
|
No its not. I am here illegal I've been paying taxes, filed taxes, got refunds you name it. I don't think it's idiotic to talk about this. What I think is idiotic is people denying that illegals pay taxes. I am living proof.
.....I may condemn what you say, but I will risk my life for that you may say it - Voltaire!
|
| |
|
|
Add to del.icio.us