Could a state survive without property taxes?

[erowe1]

Why not just make your point?

I don't really know how anyone could ever own land free and clear, at least not in the same way they can own other things. If you could explain it to me, then I'd probably understand your position better.

 

[dinosaur]

I don't really know how anyone could ever own land free and clear, at least not in the same way they can own other things. If you could explain it to me, then I'd probably understand your position better.

If you have to pay rent to the government in order to keep it, then you don't really own it.

 

[erowe1]

If you have to pay rent to the government in order to keep it, then you don't really own it.

Even if you don't have to pay rent to the government, do you ever really own land?

 

[dinosaur]

Even if you don't have to pay rent to the government, do you ever really own land?

I thought that is where you were going with your first question, that is why I said just make your point. If your point is that no one ever really owns land and all land should be part of the public domain and therefore property taxes are moral, then make it.

Personally, I think that making all land public domain actually gives too much power to the state. Having a justice system that provides for the defense of property rights is a practical defense against concentrating power. Communal ownership is a nice idea that never works. Jefferson said that "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of " and land is a commodity that is necessary for self-sufficiency.

 

[kpitcher]

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.

Michigan has homestead but that's primarily just for schools. Non residents and corporate do get charged a hefty 18 mils for schools, locals don't. Everything else is equally taxed. While I'm all for less government waste and such I do wonder how one who wants community benefits gets them paid for. For example I'm all for 24/7 paramedic care showing up within minutes. My township of a few thousand has quotes from 200-450K a year to do that. We're getting iffy 24/7 response time right now for 115k paid via a county wide millage. Fire is all volunteer but even they get ~100k a year to keep equipment going. Township wise we're primarily an ag-res area with very little business in the township. Local sales taxes wouldn't work.

 

[erowe1]

I thought that is where you were going with your first question, that is why I said just make your point. If your point is that no one ever really owns land and all land should be part of the public domain and therefore property taxes are moral, then make it.

No. That's not my point. I'm not for any kind of taxes, inasmuch as I don't advocate increasing the revenue of an inherently evil entity, such as the state.

And my question wasn't rhetorical. I still don't know how someone can own land in the same sense as they own other things, whether they pay rent or not.

Personally, I think that making all land public domain actually gives too much power to the state. Having a justice system that provides for the defense of property rights is a practical defense against concentrating power. Communal ownership is a nice idea that never works. Jefferson said that "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of " and land is a commodity that is necessary for self-sufficiency.

But still, leaving the state out of it, how does one come to own land?

 

[dinosaur]

No. That's not my point.

Then what is? If the law of a country allows ownership, and the justice system upholds that law, then why not?

 

[erowe1]

Then what is? If the law of a country allows ownership, and the justice system upholds that law, then why not?

I take it you don't like being asked questions.

Since we're talking about what ought to be, we're talking about natural law. The law of a country can be good or bad. It needs to be measured against what is actually right.

To use the argument that property taxes are worse than other kinds of taxes on the grounds that property taxes imply that a person doesn't own their land free and clear is to presuppose that there's such a thing as owning land free and clear, and that doing so is a right that is of even greater importance than the rights that are violated by other taxes. But if you can't even explain how a person can come to own land in the first place, then you can't make that argument.

 

[truelies]

Michigan has homestead but that's primarily just for schools. Non residents and corporate do get charged a hefty 18 mils for schools, locals don't. Everything else is equally taxed. While I'm all for less government waste and such I do wonder how one who wants community benefits gets them paid for. For example I'm all for 24/7 paramedic care showing up within minutes. My township of a few thousand has quotes from 200-450K a year to do that. We're getting iffy 24/7 response time right now for 115k paid via a county wide millage. Fire is all volunteer but even they get ~100k a year to keep equipment going. Township wise we're primarily an ag-res area with very little business in the township. Local sales taxes wouldn't work.

Lets see- Folks could be ask to subscribe to such a service. Say $300/yr for a household (with a modest fee for actual 911 calls to avoid the emergency room effect) seems affordable & good insurance against life & death emergency.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

And you have to admit, it wasn't exactly the hardest thing for the media to demonize Weaver and Koresh, since they were isolated from the public. If an individual or a group had an online presence and they appeared to be good people to the public, it would be next to impossible to wipe them out without a serious case of appearing to be the bad guys.

Also, this guy hasn't been taken out yet, why is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Joe_Gray

LOL - You have a much too high opinion of your fellow citizens.

10 minutes of the government propaganda machine cranked up in your direction and your own neighbors will be at your door, looking for your head on a pike.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

Sales taxes in place of property taxes?

I'd be in favor of it. Control your spending and you control your tax bite, not to mention how easy it is to subvert such a system.

Nobody is free if they are paying property taxes, you're just a serf, a sharecropper ,squatting on what is really government owned land, and only as long as the lord and master decides he wants you there.

 

[Expatriate]

LOL - You have a much too high opinion of your fellow citizens.

10 minutes of the government propaganda machine cranked up in your direction and your own neighbors will be at your door, looking for your head on a pike.

Well I wouldn't be able to survive it... What I mean is if someone had a well-established online reputation as a good person, like a Youtube celebrity of some kind.

If some people went out of their way to develop such an online presence before attempting whatever they had in mind, I think any attempts by the government to demonize them would be woefully transparent to a good chunk of the population. Most everyone knows someone who follows the internet scene.

 

[dinosaur]

I take it you don't like being asked questions.

Since we're talking about what ought to be, we're talking about natural law. The law of a country can be good or bad. It needs to be measured against what is actually right.

To use the argument that property taxes are worse than other kinds of taxes on the grounds that property taxes imply that a person doesn't own their land free and clear is to presuppose that there's such a thing as owning land free and clear, and that doing so is a right that is of even greater importance than the rights that are violated by other taxes. But if you can't even explain how a person can come to own land in the first place, then you can't make that argument.

Total BS, I actually don't have to explain a definition of free and clear to make the argument at all. It was just an expression, not a legal term. As for acquiring land, do I really need to explain that? You either buy it, battle for it, or settle and defend it, depending on what the population and politics of the time looks like. Either land is part of the public domain (and therefore controlled by the government if there is one) or you have a law that allows for property ownership and a system of justice to defend that (again if there is law). I also have to call BS on having to defend my argument in terms of natural law, when it can be defended in terms of common sense. The natural law argument and common sense arguments shouldn't contradict, but compliment one another...so if you want to talk natural law then go ahead and make an argument. Please defend your position using natural law or any angle you wish, but don't demean mine by saying that I need to attack the argument from a different angle in order for it to be valid. Both ways of thinking about the question are valid...so show me where I am wrong (using natural law) instead of asking strange questions.

p.s. Please do share with us your argument. You seem to spend time studying questions like natural law, so enlighten us.

 

[bolil]

I think providing for a good government would be a negligible expense. However completely obtaining those moneys from the realm of commerce seems like a poor idea. I propose a sales tax, and a tax on owned but unimproved land, that is unapproachlable by the public.

 

[erowe1]

As for acquiring land, do I really need to explain that? You either buy it, battle for it, or settle and defend it, depending on what the population and politics of the time looks like.

Buy it from whom? Who has the right to sell it? Where did they get that right?

If it depends on the politics of the time, then why wouldn't the fact of property taxes be considered part of the politics of the time? If there's some basic moral principle behind land ownership that makes property taxes more wrong than other taxes, then what is that principle, and why would the politics of the time even be relevent? Does morality depend on the politics of the time?

If you base your view on what you call a common sense argument, rather than a natural law argument, then what is that common sense argument. Don't beat around the bush, just present the argument so I can see what your position really is.

Either land is part of the public domain (and therefore controlled by the government if there is one) or you have a law that allows for property ownership and a system of justice to defend that (again if there is law).

What you just presented here as an either/or is not an either/or at all, but just two different ways of saying the government controls land ownership (unless by "law" you meant "natural law," which I gather from your aversion to that phrase you do not mean). But if government control of the land is the basis for land ownership, then wouldn't that be an argument in favor of property taxes, and not an argument against them?

 

[bolil]

Cant edit, sorry for the double post. Also I feel taxing consumption at any rate beyond maintining the necessary infrastructure would analogous to taxes on the very division of labor. I know that a tax adds price, which restricts demand and then supply. The price increases, which lowers the demand, which lowers supply... taxes on consumption affects the equilibrium price of goods.

 

[dinosaur]

Erowe1, I have absolutely no aversion to the phrase, natural law. In fact, I would be interested in your musings on it at it relates to property ownership. As I've said before, please enlighten us. I do, however, have an aversion to this argument. Next time, just give a sincere rebuttal, or state what your issue is with my posting, if you want me to put time into clarifying my position for you. I imagine that you don't need me to restate it, since apparently it was what prompted you to start all this.