Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Why do Christians want to control the world? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: C Kahn who wrote (322)	9/22/1999 1:11:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 424

I never said or would even think to imply that I am the only tax payer in my city. Okay, what I said was, in english, an attempt to show the absurdity of your statement by taking it to the logical limit. You implied that it was okay if your church, or others , did not pay property taxes because you paid taxes and that should cover and fire, theft, or attack on the church. Well, your taxes were priced to cover your house. Not your neighbors's house (he/she pays tax too), not the 7/11 down the street because they pay tax, and not the office of the red cross. Your tax does cover the city library, the council building, and the fire station along with other city govt. buildings. If the church is not paying a property tax (which it isn't) then your tax has to be increased to pay for coverage on that property too. You may not mind, but I do, because there seems to be a church on every corner and that's a big increase in my taxes to pay for roads, fire, police, and more while the only advantage I get is that the supermarket is less crowded on Sunday mornings. That is a crime! If you think the tax on your property covers the liability on the churches, then it implies that it covers the liability on other establishments that you frequent, which could be all buildings in the city, hence 1 taxpayer for all buildings. TP