I didn’t pay my rent with a welfare check, I don’t personally know anyone who does.
I’m sure, however, that the $200 per month the landlord was paying the local government had an effect on my cost.
Surely you aren’t arguing the the landlord simply ‘ate’ that $200 each month are you?
Oh, I didn’t say anything about your source of rent funds.
You made the argument that you pay property tax because you pay rent.
And I noted that welfare recipients who use taxpayer funds to pay rent would also - under your argument - be considered tax payers. But it would torture common sense to see them as taxpayers.
I also did not deny that landlords who pay property taxes take that into consideration when they charge rent.
But that is changing the subject.
You are not a property “taxpayer” if you bear no penalty for failure to pay property taxes (which is the case for renters) - whereas the landlord loses title to his real estate if he does not pay the property taxes.
In other words, renters have no skin in the property tax game - other than as beneficiaries of services paid for by property taxes collected directly from landlords under penalty of law.
Neither do welfare recipients.
It’s a very basic concept. Representation without taxation is just about as sinister as taxation without representation.
In my schema, market forces would drive people like yourself to select landlords who voted for officials who would spend tax funds wisely to ensure his property maintained its value. That is how your interests would be served.
Other wise we have people with no skin in the game demanding “free” stuff from government.