Could a state survive without property taxes?

[tfurrh]

If you're talking about some revenue-neutral scheme where you just replace property taxes with higher sales taxes or income taxes, then I'd be against it.

Huh? Why not?

 

[awake]

Could a gang of thieves survive with out stealing? Sure, they would have to adopt voluntary exchange.

 

[erowe1]

Huh? Why not?

First, I don't really care for revenue-neutral tax reform to begin with. Sales taxes are just as much of a violation of rights as property taxes are. It's just someone trying to get the same number of feathers off the duck with less squawking.

Second, if I had to pick one kind of tax that was less evil than another, I'd probably say the property tax is less evil than either sales or income tax. Zero theft is always better than any theft. But if there's going to be some theft, then I'm sympathetic to what Thomas Jefferson said here:

I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.

http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2181/default.asp

 

[Keith and stuff]

If you're talking about some revenue-neutral scheme where you just replace property taxes with higher sales taxes or income taxes, then I'd be against it.

Me too. I guess it depends on where people live. In NH, we don't have a state wage tax or a general sales tax. The people in the 200+ towns and local communities greatly decide their property taxes by voting on which services the town should provide at the town meeting. The voters in the town act as the representative body. Some communities have no property taxes, some have extremely low property taxes, some have high property taxes and some have very high property taxes. This is the most Democratic system in the US, if not the world. Some people are against Democratic systems. I understand that. Those people would likely like to take this power away from the people and create a state income and or state sales tax. Around here, most of the people like this are progressives. Progressives tend to hate Democracy and everything it stands for. They want a central government controlling things such as may have been proposed by the OP.

 

[erowe1]

Me too. I guess it depends on where people live. In NH, we don't have a state wage tax or a general sales tax. The people in the 200+ towns and local communities greatly decide their property taxes by voting on which services the town should provide at the town meeting. The voters in the town act as the representative body. Some communities have no property taxes, some have extremely low property taxes, some have high property taxes and some have very high property taxes. This is the most Democratic system in the US, if not the world. Some people are against Democratic systems. I understand that. Those people would likely like to take this power away from the people and create a state income and or state sales tax. Around here, most of the people like this are progressives. Progressives tend to hate Democracy and everything it stands for. They want a central government controlling things such as may have been proposed by the OP.

One thing about property taxes that would ameliorate this argument that a person should be able to have a plot of land they can call their own, is that you can have a homestead exemption that allows people to own small parcels, and only charge taxes on ownership of land above that amount.

 

[Keith and stuff]

One thing about property taxes that would ameliorate this argument that a person should be able to have a plot of land they can call their own, is that you can have a homestead exemption that allows people to own small parcels, and only charge taxes on ownership of land above that amount.

That would help the middle class at the expensive of the poor, the upper middle class and the wealthy, though. For example, if the 1st $30,000 of value on a personal's 1st home wasn't taxed, the would be awesome for the middle class folks with the $150,000 homes. However, would mean that apartment owners would have to pay additional taxes and rents would go up for poor people. If rents go up, it might even mean the government subsidizes rent more, which would lead to higher taxes, which would lead to higher rents for the poor.

 

[fisharmor]

Those both happened before the Internet became a common source of information for everyone, it would be a lot harder to demonize someone now that the mainstream media has competition.

Um... did we NOT just go through the second election cycle where they did exactly that to Ron Paul?

 

[XNavyNuke]

There's a lot of talk about the free state project and the like, but if you have to pay property taxes, you are never really free!

There's a huge billboard in my state that says "IF YOU OWN PROPERTY, YOU OWE TAXES!" http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/057048-2009-09-08-if-you-own-property-you-owe-taxes.htm

Can you imagine the influx of business and residents if a state decided to eliminate state, city, county, (ALL) property taxes?

A person could have a farm, pay it off entirely, and literally "be free"

Is such a thing possible?

There were lots of states without property taxes for periods of time during the 18th & 19th centuries. Historically, property taxes were endemic throughout the 20th century. The question is could you get a sufficient number of people to believe that they can "make do" with only the level of government that was being paid for in the 18th and 19th centuries. I'd speculate no. Even if you started out with that core group, the influx of newcomers would have their own ideas and that would bleed over eventually into policy. That's the issue with southern NH being so close to MA. People move across the border and bring with them their favorite government program.

XNN

 

[osan]

There's a lot of talk about the free state project and the like, but if you have to pay property taxes, you are never really free!

There's a huge billboard in my state that says "IF YOU OWN PROPERTY, YOU OWE TAXES!" http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/057048-2009-09-08-if-you-own-property-you-owe-taxes.htm

Can you imagine the influx of business and residents if a state decided to eliminate state, city, county, (ALL) property taxes?

A person could have a farm, pay it off entirely, and literally "be free"

Is such a thing possible?

Of course it is possible. It is not, however, very likely. Barring the advent of a post-apocalyptic world, I see just this side of zero chances of the elimination of property taxes as it is the one guaranteed way to keep people on the end of your string. In the final analysis, that is what government is all about, fluffy bunnies and light rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[adams101]

The problem with property taxes is, unlike most government run taxation, they are not about supporting the "government workers" and bureaucracy. They are about socialism in its purest form. Most places have more than 80% of all property taxes go to schools. They are much more of a "school tax" than a property tax.

More people have children than don't and that majority votes to have the taxation supporting the school system to be assessed on property. They do this so everyone without children gets stuck paying massive taxes to raise "their children". Even the most ultra-conservative of voters hail this pure socialism as "just fine". Their standard of living is considerably higher if they get other people to pay for their children.

The reason this exists is because of a democracy, which is nothing more than "mob rule. The individual gets no more rights to their income than "the mob" lets them. This is also why the founders made a Republic and NOT a Democracy. I don't think the word Democracy is in the Constitution or any of the original documents......... for a reason.

Once you separate "school services" from property taxes your property taxes would go down to a ridiculously low amount but then people with children would have to actually pay for the financial burden those children cost. In a Republic the rights of the individual to their income supersedes the wants/needs of "the mob/majority" and the government. This is why the founders made everything so decentralized.

 

[osan]

There were lots of states without property taxes for periods of time during the 18th & 19th centuries. Historically, property taxes were endemic throughout the 20th century. The question is could you get a sufficient number of people to believe that they can "make do" with only the level of government that was being paid for in the 18th and 19th centuries. I'd speculate no. Even if you started out with that core group, the influx of newcomers would have their own ideas and that would bleed over eventually into policy. That's the issue with southern NH being so close to MA. People move across the border and bring with them their favorite government program.

XNN

In addition, the more deeply a population is driven toward poverty, the more attractive big government looks. Why does anyone think our economies are in the tank? This is all about the cultivation and concentration of power.

 

[truelies]

Why? As taxes go the Property Tax is not all that bad as long as it is collected without playing favourites.

 

[idiom]

So I guess the LVT trolls have finally moved on?

 

[erowe1]

So I guess the LVT trolls have finally moved on?

Good observation. I guess so.

I have some sympathy for the LVT, but only in comparison to other taxes, not as a positive good.

 

[AFPVet]

Totally. For example, ND gets tons of federal welfare because of farming. It also gets tons of money from oil/gas. ND could eliminate property taxes if you could convince the people to do so. The property taxes would likely need to come back after the oil/gas cycle ends. However, in the mean time, ND could double business taxes, cut spending and eliminate property taxes.

Of course, the people of ND recently overwhelming rejected ending property taxes.

Yeah... it's crazy.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Yeah... it's crazy.

68% Want Both Tax Hikes and Spending Cuts in Budget Deal
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...th_tax_hikes_and_spending_cuts_in_budget_deal

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 68% of voters nationwide favor a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts to help reduce the federal budget deficit. Twenty-four percent (24%) want spending cuts only and 4% would prefer only tax hikes.

What means 72% want federal taxes increased vs. 24% who don't.

 

[Henry Rogue]

So I guess the LVT trolls have finally moved on?

Roy L is banned, last post 9/15/12. I would guess the rest are banned too. I'm sure he's chomping at the bit right now, wishing he could take over this thread.

 

[dinosaur]

Any tax is better than a property or inheritance tax, any. If you can't own land free and clear, you are a serf. Income taxes also make us into serfs, but if one is able to own property or barter then one can opt out of all that.

 

[erowe1]

Any tax is better than a property or inheritance tax, any. If you can't own land free and clear, you are a serf. Income taxes also make us into serfs, but if one is able to own property or barter then one can opt out of all that.

How does one come to own land free and clear?

 

[dinosaur]

How does one come to own land free and clear?

Why not just make your point?