Posted on 03/31/2024 9:19:03 AM PDT by Twotone
They tried this here in the people’s Republic of Maryland.
Things like this always sound great to non-homeowners who have been promised a cut of the new revenues.
I was gonna say....pikers.
LOS ANGELES has done this for years.
Every surface that is considered NOT PERMEABLE has a Sq Ft tax on it. Even the tops of horse shelters at a boarding stable I once had my horses at.
every roof-—sidewalk (city owned, BTW) every driveway, patio, etc.
Long as I remember the rain been comin’ down
Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground
Good men through the ages tryin’ to find the sun
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain?
Officials desperately trying to feed their addiction to money.
What will the taxes run on a tarp in a homeless camp?
The joke has been they will tax the oxygen you breathe, but that will be next.
So Toronto wants to tax it, Oregon wants to own it. In both cases, landowners lose.
“Toronto is consulting the public” and afterwards will ignore the public and do whatever it pleases.
This one is really borderline violating the “Takings” clause. Existing properties should be grandfathered, because folks might have done things differently if they’d known this BS was coming.
Just a sneaky way of taxing property and leaving owners with the false illusion that they actually “own” it.
The ultimate goal is total confiscation of all private property and the means of production. (Except that of the ruling elite, which won’t have to suffer the same pain as the common herd).
One would hope but I have no faith in rational regulation coming from my state.
The PRM was a leader in getting taxes levied on internet transactions, after all.
We joke that any rain tax proposal in California is the Wet Dream of every city and county tax looters!
“In both cases, landowners lose.”
I’m curious if there is a contract to comfiscate water by the government and who signed it for God representation. God is the one that makes it rain. And if there is a drought, can they sue God for lack of fullfilling the contract and can the people being taxed be given a refund for non-supplied taxable items? Is taking water from rivers that cross state lines considered interstate commerce? Opens up Pandora’s box.
wy69
“In both cases, landowners lose.”
I’m curious if there is a contract to comfiscate water by the government and who signed it for God representation. God is the one that makes it rain. And if there is a drought, can they sue God for lack of fullfilling the contract and can the people being taxed be given a refund for non-supplied taxable items? Is taking water from rivers that cross state lines considered interstate commerce? Opens up Pandora’s box.
wy69
didn’t Martin OMalley try this in Maryland?
Whether you agree or disagree with the idea, they are not taxing rain, they are taxing concrete surfaces, because I doubt that the tax varies with rainfall. So if there’s a wet June and a bone dry July, you’d pay the tax in both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.