SkyDekker

Not sure how it works in the US, but in Canada you can challenge the value attributed, so you aren't paying on "promise" of future value but on current value. All my commercial properties are valued on actual or average rental income with a deduction for vacancies. Again, taxed on actual value, not potential value. And value of property is only one portion of the property tax equasion. The municipality sets what we call mill rate based on budget. Hence, an increase in value does not necessarily mean an increase in property taxes payable.

+1

And nothing in my post says they did either.

Property tax deductions for parkland, greenland and in some cases agriculatural lands make perfect sense to me. The issue is the allowed abuse of those designations.

Why would any alien beings be like us? They could have a much londer lifespan. They could be significantly smarter. They could have been around millions of years longer and have significantly more advanced technology

Plus you give about $3 billion in aid to Israel on an annual basis (mostly in military aid now). Though I have this feeling that many who advocate stopping all foreign aid and getting rid of all exceptions, would make an exception

And it still is, cause in this case they ruled the search to be reasonable.

Well, policy makers decide on funding for defence and other projects. Policy makers set foreign policy and decide on acts of war. Some of their decisions put the country or state or municipality at greater risk, some make it safer. Yet, I don't see a great adoration for policy makers. Instead adoration seems to be reserved for those in a uniform. They all get funded by taxpayer money. When was the last time anybody in uniform thanked the average working person for their contribution towards their salary and benefits?

Well done!! Nothing like a PB and one of the great benefits of racing a distance for the first time lol

It's his opinion. I couldn't say it with 100% certainty. I do think it would have been harder without easy access to firearms. Some of this is just th price you have to pay for the 2nd Amendment. Don't you think that statement is very similar to what Bob Costas said and what has gotten you so worked up?

And so the parents should go to jail along with the kid when there is misuse resulting in injury or death.

I don't know. Do you?

Construction workers do the same thing. Don't see too much adoration for them being displayed. Policy makers do a lot more in that regard....they certainly get absolutely no adoration.

I am not trying to necessarily make any assumptions. I just don't agree that government does not have a role in some from of social engineering. A country will need to maintain some growth for it to prosper, or at least maintain a steady base of employable people. Some of these items have long lag times...as in 18 years or so. I am not convinced that simple market forces will deal with lag times of that length. I think the idea is utopian.

And when this new tax scheme makes it too expensive to have children and the population starts declining. What would you suggest be done?

Don't you hate when a coloured person has more than you...

Contracts get re-negotiated all the time in alls ectors. Both parties have the option to say they do not want to renegotiate. In this case, that's what the union said. Actions have consequences. Unfortunately, with the exisiting contract the company is not profitable and will go bankrupt.

Isn't that same threat how he got the money in the first place?

Why? Is he going to thank me for working hard to keep an economy going so he can have a job? What makes his job more important than my job, or other people's jobs? This adoration of all things uniform is tiring. They chose their job, deal with the consequences. Thank and award them when they do an exceptional job. This officer deserves the recognition he is getting. Many others don't. I'll thank an officer after one thanks me for working hard so he can be the highest paid LEO in the country.

Right. Though I doubt you would want to argue that since open containers in a vehicle on public roads are banned, so should firearms. Since that would only hamper law abiding citizens wanting to be armed while in their car. You still end up on opposite sides of the same principle.

Hey, thanks for clarifying! No apology needed. Our gun laws in Canada are just significantly different.

Uhm no. I see a car as private property and not comparable to federal property. I haven't said ban guns. Actually If you read subsequent posts you would have clearly seen that I fully support the argument that you have a right to arms based on the 2nd Amendment. Lastly, where I live defending myself with a firearm would most likely get me in trouble. But I have been to the "local" range and enjoyed myself. Sorry that burst your bubble, but life isn't as black and white as pro-gun and anti-gun.

Not at all. In many if not most jurisdiction you are anot allowed to possess an open container in your vehicle. Even if you don't use the open container, by drinking from it. It is a clear banning of the possession of an object. Equivalent to the banning of a gun on your own private property, or for instance the banning of a gun in a vehicle.

When are religions going to pull their heads out of their asses and stop allowing criminals to attain positions of implied reverence and trust?

And this is the crux of my issue. The argument from the pro-gun crowd is that it makes no sense to ban guns since it takes away guns from law abiding citizens. The argument continues that law abiding citizens should not be penalized for what a nefarious person would do with a gun. Open container laws go directly against the above stated principle. It bans an object from law abiding citizens because nefarious people might do something bad with that object. It is hypocritical to use a principle in favour of one subject, but completely disregard that principle on another subject. Actually it was Davinci who introduced that comparison. My argument was based on the principle outlined above. If your argument is that this principle needs to be abandoned after a a certain number of deaths is reached and therefor it is acceptable to use in open container laws, then we can obviously talk about that. Right, but that isn't the topic of dicussion in my argument. The principle brought forward wasn't: it doesn't make sense to ban guns because it is against the second amendment. That is a stance and logic I could completely support. (Even though I don't agree that the historical justification for the Amendment still holds water).