North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

[Steven Douglas]

Geoism does tax the ownership of land. It reclaims socially created wealth for social purposes. You have been told this repeatedly.

There is no "socially created wealth" to reclaim, contrary to your delusion. There is only labor and capital equity to erode based on the fact of external influences beyond the landholder's control which affect the putative market value of the land, however that is determined. This valuation determines the amount of real wealth (not land value) that is siphoned from the landholder in the name of a collective.

See how that works, and why "socially created wealth" as a rationale for an ad valorem tax on land is such a delusion? The wealth required to pay the tax doesn't necessarily come from the land, or its value.

Also, do you think that there is something magical about saying something repeatedly, or saying that someone has "been told this repeatedly"? I can assure you there is not. There is nothing special about you, your position, or your repeated tellings. You have been told this once.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Read it properly.

How about I just read it? That's what he says. Very clear. You want to spin it. Fine. But that's your own ideas and desires and philosophy, not George's. You can go on reading it "properly," and I will go on reading what it plainly says in plain English.

 

[EcoWarrier]

LVT proponents, because of their primary focus on LVT as a revenue source for the State, rather than a protection of individual rights of exclusive land possession

LVT does not prevent you from holding land title. You can buy and sell title at will. You have repeatedly been told this.

 

[EcoWarrier]

To me, it is irrelevant whether the source of the tax is income or a sales tax or a toll. What matters is that there is a correlation between amount used and amount paid. If I use no services, I should owe no tax. LVT not only doesn't provide good correlation, it completely severs any correlation except coincidentally and that is why it is so evil.

You are very confused. In your mind every street should a barrier and a coin box for you to pay to walk down. No public libraries, pay to send your kids to school. Pay the fire dept when they are called out. If you have no money or not insured your House burns down, etc, etc.

You are in la-la land.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Ah, the "paid forum shill" card most often played by the paranoid, conspiracy theorists, and those with a leftist bent...

When defeated many brainwashed right-wing Americans revert to leftist accusations. You are a clear nut or paid to infest forums. No one can be so blinkered and continually repeat lies as you do. No one can so incapable of learning as you.

 

[Steven Douglas]

When defeated many brainwashed right-wing Americans revert to leftist accusations. You are a clear nut or paid to infest forums. No one can be so blinkered and continually repeat lies as you do. No one can so incapable of learning as you.

More and more you're sounding like Roy with your constant repetition and simplistic and dogmatic pronouncements and denouncements.

OK, so I'm a defeated, brainwashed, blinkered liar who is incapable of learning (does that make you the teacher?). I'm also either a clear nut or someone who is paid to infest forums. Does that mean you infested this forum for free?! Say it ain't so! And here along I thought you were raking in the big bucks like me. You just have to know where to apply.

 

[Tod]

Price is a function of subjective valuations of individuals, not exclusively, mostly, or even much in part to do with production costs. In fact, production costs have nothing to do with price. Production costs do though have everything to do with a companies profitability or losses. Therefore, it is entirely factual that the customer does not bear such costs.

I agree, nothing is free, but that does not mean free to no parties. The costs are a function of the business, not to the consumer. Therefore, the consumer may receive such a free benefit, due to the benefit accrued to the business owner by his providing this service free of charge to the consumer. Have you never received free food in a grocery store? They do not do this out of the kindness of their hearts, but because it is a beneficial use of their capital. The businesses that give free ambulation of their pathways, roads, etc. receive far more back from their small upkeep and production costs in the form of having an actual business.

I would like to see you try and run an establishment that has no way for customers to come to your property in a convenient manner. Furthermore, an establishment who charges customers to even come to his commercial establishment in the first place (that is, paying to use storefront pathways, parking lots, roadways, etc.), would find themselves with few customers. There would be many partnerships in commercial areas that provided free use of roads, paths, parking, etc. in a free-society.

As someone who has worked for decades in manufacturing and now own a service business, I can assure you that you are very wrong in saying that production costs have nothing to do with price. Consider it this way: No business would be able to stay in business if they couldn't charge enough to cover their production costs.

I used the word "normally", because most businesses I know embed something generic like the cost of a sidewalk or parking lot into the price of what they sell, but I do know several that do have a separate fee for parking. It allows those customers who are especially cost conscious to decide whether to spend the extra money. In many cases, this would be more bother than it is worth, but sometimes it works out to the best to have that sort of expense broken out as an option.

 

[Tod]

You are very confused. In your mind every street should a barrier and a coin box for you to pay to walk down. No public libraries, pay to send your kids to school. Pay the fire dept when they are called out. If you have no money or not insured your House burns down, etc, etc.

You are in la-la land.

Oh, my. Surely you can think of other options besides a barrier and a coin box on every street. Try harder, and I'll bet if you apply yourself you'll be able to think of alternative solutions of attributing cost to usage.

I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion as the absurdity of it all is beginning to make me feel as though my username should have been Sisyphus.

 

[EcoWarrier]

How about I just read it? That's what he says. Very clear. You want to spin it. Fine. But that's your own ideas and desires and philosophy, not George's. You can go on reading it "properly," and I will go on reading what it plainly says in plain English.

George believed that the factors of production - land, labor and capital - should be "privately possessed". That was clear.

Currently the state takes on the role of supporting the poor by taxing the rich, rather than supervising an economy in which everyone would have the opportunity to provide for their own needs. Ensuring Freedom.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Oh, my. Surely you can think of other options besides a barrier and a coin box on every street. Try harder,

I am sure the likes of you can. What about the police and army? Collections on doorsteps for to pay for them as well? Call out charge for the police? So only the rich can use them? Coin boxes all over la-la land. Wherever you go, someone wants money from you. A self-centered man eat man society where the few own most.

I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion as the absurdity of it all is beginning to make me feel as though my username should have been Sisyphus.

In your view from la-la land all the world must look absurd.

 

[redbluepill]

If I say that my solution is to bind your legs, but someone else's solution is to bind your hands and arms, by your logic I could say the solutions are not at all similar, as arms are very different from legs. Anyone can see that hands and arms are far more useful than legs, so my solution is obviously superior, and not anything like the other, as you are still quite "FREE" to use your hands and arms with my solution.

The point is that you are the one who keeps bringing up Marxism in reference to Georgism when you know full well it is intellectually dishonest.

Where you and Dan Sullivan err is in wanting to have your socialist cake and justify eating it too by calling it classical liberalism cake.

What do the classical liberals say about property in land? Read what they actually said please. But I know you won't.
http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

Sullivan states that "Common rights are inalienable, individual rights -- the very opposite of collective rights." -- and yet he is trying to make the argument for collectivization of land based on individual deprivations and abrogation of individual rights (TO LAND). But those so-called "individual rights" are not individualized AT ALL. They are FOREVER collectivized under LVT. So what he is arguing is as absurd as it is self-contradictory.

Where does he say "collectivize the land"? This is part of the reason why these threads on land and property get so long. You royal libertarians refuse to use correct terminology.

Here's where Dan Sullivan makes an unwitting argument against LVT by quoting Locke (whom I happen to agree with) as an authority

So I assume you agree with Locke when he says "the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men"?

The solution to a violation of Locke's Proviso (that someone/anyone is denied opportunity to access to land of their own) is to unblock those who have artificially blocked that access; to open up that opportunity and restore that access as an inalienable INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO EACH, and not the exclusive privilege of the very few (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE).

Geolibs fully accept this deprivation as a first principle. Their solution is not to see a violation of Locke's Proviso and UNVIOLATE IT. Their solution is not to unblock that opportunity of access and restore the right of access to individuals FOR LANDS OF THEIR OWN as a matter of right. Their solution is to say, "Yes, you can continue your exclusive possession, and continue to violate Locke's Proviso, denying this Common right of individuals, but only for a price. That is where LVT proponents collectivize the rights of others and offer them up FOR RENT to the highest bidder.

On the contrary, Georgists do seek to unviolate Locke's Proviso through the LVT. All that land that is locked up will be freed when landlords realize it is not economically sound to keep it idle. Land prices will drop. More individuals will be able to afford to possess a piece of land.

And that rent paid -- under color of recompense for the denial of Common Rights of Individuals -- is not paid directly to ANY individual whose rights are denied.

Yes, it can be. Its called the Citizen's Dividend.

This is because their so-called equal "Common", equal, individual rights have been collectivized.

You are so far in left field its not even funny.

Check out these collectivist government lovers!

James Buchanan
"The landowner who withdraws land from productive use to a purely private use should be required to pay higher, not lower, taxes."

Adam Smith
"Both ground rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own... Ground rents seem, in this respect, a more proper subject of peculiar taxation... Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly."

Francois Quesnay
Thus the form of assessment which is the most simple, the most regular, the most profitable to the state, and the least burdensome to the tax-payers, is that which is made proportionate to and laid directly on the source of continually regenerated wealth (land).

Milton Friedman
Land should be taxed as much as possible and improvements as little as possible.

Frank Chodorov
"It is obvious that if rent were socialized - that is, publicly collected and used for social purposes - the power of the State would decline, and eventually disappear. The governing body could not hide its inefficiency or corruption behind tax levies. Rent would be the barometer of government's value to the citizenry, and the readings would be quite visible. The producers would be buying social services just as they buy private services or goods. The price would be rent. Government would come into the market. […] The socialization of rent would destroy taxes. The State (as we know it) would disappear; and such government as we would have would be always subject to the economic instrument of rent."

Albert Jay Nock
"Why tax industry and enterprise at all—why not just charge rent? There would be no need to interfere with the private ownership of natural resources. Let a man own all of them he can get his hands on, and make as much out of them as he may, untaxed; but let him pay the community their annual rental value, determined simply by what other people would be willing to pay for the use of the same holdings. George could see justification for wages and interest, on the ground of natural right; and for private ownership of natural resources, on the ground of public policy; but he could see none for the private appropriation of economic rent. In his view It was sheer theft."

OMG! The libertarian movement was infiltrated by statists!

Here Locke talks about lands actually held in common, but even there this entails possession, or exclusive use of lands worked.

Georgists do not argue against exclusive possession.

So long as more land existed for a claim for others, there is NO DEPRIVATION involved, no cause for complaint, and no obligation on the part of the exclusive holders. This is counter to the geolib claim that everyone has an equal claim to all lands, and that a deprivation is being suffered even when other neighboring lands are readily available.

So a wasteland is just as good for human use as fertile soil? When all the good land is privately owned with no reimbursement you get poverty. You see that in the history of the South. The most fertile soil was taken by the plantation owners. The rest got the scraps. They either had to work for the landlords or worked less productive land.

That's not really an accurate paraphrase, but let's stipulate for the sake of discussion that it is. Once again, the obvious solution to scarcity and value increases due to speculation only is to prevent or undo all such speculation WITHOUT TREADING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHO ARE NOT SPECULATING, but who are only acting as a matter of right under Locke's Proviso. One mechanism for this could be to charge LVT, or Ground Rents targeted TO SPECULATORS ONLY - only to those acting as a matter of privilege, and not right. In other words, make it not worth it for most to speculate. And if charging Ground Rent to speculators fails to bring the scarcity down, sterner "anti-trust" measures could be taken, right down to outright confiscation and public auctions for non-compliance.

So let me get this straight, you are okay with an LVT as long as its only charged to speculators? If you really believe its their land, their rightful property, then whats wrong with speculation?

And I agree. Those are the first principles; NOT a revenue mechanism for the State, but rather land that is accessible to others to possess exclusively as a matter of right, and not appropriated or held out of use, or to the exclusion of others for lands of their own.

You ignore the fact that Locke declared land the common property of all: "The earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men..."
and distinguishes this common property from private property: "...yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

He goes on to say that whatever you remove from nature/mix labor with becomes private property by extension. Those are the improvements Georgists talk about. So when an individual removes trees from nature to build a house that house is his/her private property through his work.

Land by itself was never anyone's product of labor and it cannot be rightfully considered property. Locke supports this argument when he states, "When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its private property at all."

Now I do disagree with Locke to an extent here. Land, whether cultivated or uncultivated, can never be considered private property. Only the products of labor can be private property.

Thomas Paine was right on: "Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

As Sullivan correctly stated, "As long as [Locke's Proviso] is met, the landholder has no reciprocal obligation to the community or its members, because his holding land has not prevented others from exercising their rights to do likewise.

And that's the argument AGAINST LVT in a nutshell.

How convenient you left out this part:

"Now if the situation is that there is enough free land, and as good, left after you take and cultivate your land, than your land has no market value, for who would pay you for land that is not better than land that can be had for free? So, besides the fact that Locke's justification of privatizing land is far more limited than royal libertarians portray it to be, it is irrelevant to the question of land value tax, as it applies only to land that has no value."
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As someone who has worked for decades in manufacturing and now own a service business, I can assure you that you are very wrong in saying that production costs have nothing to do with price. Consider it this way: No business would be able to stay in business if they couldn't charge enough to cover their production costs.

I used the word "normally", because most businesses I know embed something generic like the cost of a sidewalk or parking lot into the price of what they sell, but I do know several that do have a separate fee for parking. It allows those customers who are especially cost conscious to decide whether to spend the extra money. In many cases, this would be more bother than it is worth, but sometimes it works out to the best to have that sort of expense broken out as an option.

I'd give this a good read:

http://mises.org/daily/5333/SubjectiveValue-Theory

The relation of the costs of production to price as I said are only extent to determine ex-ante profitability or loss. Price however, is determined subjectively and purely by marginal utility and time preferences. So, no, production costs have little to nothing to do with prices. You seem to confuse profit and loss potentialities with price formation.

 

[EcoWarrier]

More and more you're sounding like Roy with your constant repetition and simplistic and dogmatic pronouncements and denouncements.

Roy is capable of learning. You are not. If you are, then are you paid to infest these forums?

You forgot "pinkie Commie" and "red under the bed". Keep em commin' they are fun. It is highly predictable from the brainwashed right-wing. It is like they all read the same book on how worm out of being cornered.

 

[redbluepill]

To me, it is irrelevant whether the source of the tax is income or a sales tax or a toll. What matters is that there is a correlation between amount used and amount paid.

You just contradicted yourself. I just proved to you there is little correlation between income tax and payment for roads. One could be working from the house and rarely use roads. One could carpool. On the other side of the coin, a man could be living off an inheritance and therefore not pay an income tax while using taxpayer funded roads daily.

LVT not only doesn't provide good correlation, it completely severs any correlation except coincidentally and that is why it is so evil.

You pay LVT for the government to recognize and protect your privilege to hold a piece of land exclusively. You pay for the police to keep trespassers away, you pay for the court system which is necessary for territory disputes, etc.

 

[Vampire]

OK, so you admit that the "home stolen and put out into the street" claim is a total lie.

As I knew would be the case, you cannot provide even a single documented example for your claim.

OK, so you again admit that the "elderly widow's home stolen and her put out into the street" claim is a total lie, and has never actually happened. Good.

As for the elderly widow thrown out of her home, I can not comment on that situation of which I do not know. Is it plausible? Yes due to state/county policies for confiscation of one's property if they do not pay property taxes. If you would step into the real world, go to the county/state office which deals with these things and request said information you would see for yourself (you can even do research). There is plenty of documentation available to you in regards to the information you seek. Tax lien certificates / tax deed sales do happen. If an individual can not pay, the lien holder (depending on the state) can wind up with the property. You can attend one of these auctions, or purchase tax liens/ deed certificates.

Here's a simple video that explains the tax deed auction process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgCmNllMRw

Here's an auction - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9SLojkPLw

Another one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfZbyDouUA

Another sale from a 06' or so (current tax deed info is in blue down below from WA) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxwr2Qd6Tc8



As to state services, to suggest that government should collect taxes would mean they are providing a valuable service better than the market can. The track record of government providing services is horrid. The waste and abuse of state monopolies wherein there is no competition is rampant. Take a look at road construction. Innovation in road construction has remained stagnant in many cases. Instead of "rubberizing" a road (among other advancements), which will extend the life of a road tremendously, there were state DOT's that mixed in glass with the asphalt. What happens when glass get's wet, or has a sheen of oil on it? It becomes very slippery and can become a hazard. A hazard it became, hence the requirement to chop up the road and repave it. Then there are instances where the road department will wish for either the same budget as prior years, or more. Therefore, roads that need repairs are left in horrible shape, while current jobs are extended, or done incorrectly requiring repaving and so on. If this were a business, it would have been bankrupt after the first week of operation. The state doesn't have to worry, as it can confiscate more money through taxation, or have the FedGov issue freshly printed stimulus funds, wherein all whom hold the currency are then robbed.

This of course doesn't stop at roads, it happens in sanitation as well as numerous other area's (DOD, HHS, and so on). For what reason is there for government to provide sanitation, when the market is capable of handling these services, and has done so successfully? So, if an individual chooses private sanitation, they are forced to pay for the state provided sanitation through taxes, as they simply can not opt out, as that is much to difficult for bureaucracy to handle as many are busy trying to find clever new ways to rob individuals. Look at Amtrak, other GOC's, and even businesses that have been subsidized through fed and state politicians. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Fannie & Freddie, Solyndra and many more have horrid track records. Individuals may try and claim: The government can provide services cheaper than the market! The price may be lower if one ignores the unseen costs associated with such services which mostly are above that of the market price after the seen and unseen costs are realized.

Individuals create wealth, not communities. So, what if the community decides (as some individuals believe there should be no private property in regards to land) the den area and spare bedroom located in the house you live in is to be utilized to shelter a homeless person, or an individual whom chose not to work? They decide the area you just spent $40,000 to improve will be where this individual will reside. For if it were not for the community, you may not have had the $40,000 to spend to improve the household.

Suppose a land title holder Individual A invested 10 million dollars into the land and the business that occupies it. The value of a large area of land increases in value due to Individual A's investments. New businesses open, and things are booming. The politicians through funds received through the LVT decide to subsidize Individual A's competitor, Individual B. They also write regulations in favor of Individual B's business. Artificial capital to the competitor eventually forces Individual A out of business. The individual looses everything and is unable to pay the LVT. It was that individual A's business and investments that had raised the value of other land throughout the area and also increased business activity, yet individual A is now broke due to the actions of those politicians and can only afford to live off the land. Does the state in which collected the LVT reimburse Individual A for all the investments and subsequent improvement to that area? Does the community reimburse that individual as they have benefited from Individual A's investments? If it weren't for individual A, the rest of the community wouldn't have had those gains. Oh well individual A, the property will be confiscated and auctioned off. You can always move to another community.




King County Washington Tax sale information - (http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/Finance/Treasury/Foreclosure.aspx)

Foreclosure Auction Notice
Date: December 2012 (Actual date to be determined.)
Location: To be determined.
Publication Date: To be determined.

In 2012 the properties subject to foreclosure are those on which the 2009 full year tax is delinquent. In some cases, 2008 or earlier taxes may also be delinquent. The grace period is three years and the full year 2009 taxes will be three years past due on May 1, 2012. NOTE: It does not matter if the 2010, 2011 or 2012 taxes are paid. It is not when there are three years of taxes past due but when one year's tax is three years past due that foreclosure begins.
We do not maintain a mailing list to notify people of each year's tax foreclosure. The great majority of people who ask for information never attend the auction or do any research once they find out what is required and what is involved. Further, people move without telling us and it is a waste of county resources when the list is returned. On or about June 10, 2012, a Foreclosure List is made available to the public for viewing. The Summons and Notice, which includes a list of the properties, will be published in the Seattle Times classified (legal) section sometime in late October after all our certified mail notifications are completed. A paper copy computer list may be purchased in the office on or about June 10, 2012 for $5.00; $8.00 if mailed.
We do not sell "tax certificates or "deeds" of any nature. In some states you may purchase a certificate of some kind showing that you paid the delinquent taxes but we don't have any information on this procedure because there is no provision for it in Washington State law.
If you obtain a list from us for research purposes, remember that you will need to come into our office or visit our web site periodically to delete those accounts that were paid since your list was printed. The web site list will normally be updated daily via the technology staff after normal working hours. Due to the volume of work this information will not be provided by telephone. Parcels may be redeemed from foreclosure at any time up to the day before the auction, thus we do not know what will be in the sale until the morning of the auction.
There is no redemption period after the sale except in cases where the owner on the day of the sale was either a minor child or a person adjudicated to be legally incompetent. In those cases, there is a three year redemption period.
As real estate taxes are in the first lien position, the tax foreclosure extinguishes all other encumbrances including but not limited to Deeds of Trust, mortgages, contracts, liens, judgments and any similar items. However, any Local Improvement Assessments (LIDs) remain and become the obligation of the buyer. Also, Internal Revenue liens remain.
Some parcels may be sold out of order from how they appeared in the newspaper and in the lists mentioned in #2. An announcement will be made at the beginning of the auction advising which parcels will be auctioned out of order. The list mentioned in #2 shows parcels in numerical order by tax account number which, in turn, derives from the alphabetical order of the plat name or from the Section, Township and Range if the property is unplatted.
ALL SALES ARE FINAL. PROPERTIES ARE SOLD ON A "WHERE IS" AND "AS IS" BASIS.

All research must be done by the interested party. Normally this would include checking maps in the Assessor's Office and doing research through the public computer terminals in the Assessor's Office. An on-site inspection should also be made. Just because a property looks desirable on the map does not mean it is in actuality. The map does not show the topography such as ravines, hill, slopes, etc., nor does the map show what is on the property (dense growth, swamp, boulders, etc.). Some properties may be private roads covered by easements for ingress and egress. Easements are not extinguished by the foreclosure sale but remain with the land. You may not block the easement to try to extort money out of the users.

Similarly, when you see that a property lies near or under a transmission line easement, there will likely be restrictions against building anything on the land. Transmission line easements do appear on the Assessor's maps but private easements do not.

Some properties may be subject to use restrictions and covenants set up in the original plat. Some of these may be labeled Open Space, Open Area, Greenbelt or similar. Their use is often strictly limited. The King County Department of Developmental & Environmental Services has ruled it will not issue building permits on any such lots. You should also be aware of properties where the legal description contains the term "Drainage Easement" or Retention Pond" or similar terms.

It is up to you to know exactly what you are bidding on. We cannot stress this too strongly. Every year people who have done little or no research or who do not know how to read a legal description buy properties that, to them, are totally useless. Knowledgeable parties who have done the proper research will avoid these properties. We do not overturn a sale and refund the purchase price because a bidder didn't know what they were bidding on, nor because they didn't understand the legal description.
Do not count on buying a house at the foreclosure auction. Normally, owners of improved properties subject to tax foreclosure will raise the money to redeem the property before the sale, often at the last minute. Most houses that are foreclosed on have delinquent loans held by banks, mortgage companies or other lenders. There is no department within the county that has information on these lending agency foreclosures.
Properties not sold to the public at the auction are sold to King County. These parcels are thereafter called "Tax Title Properties". Most of these parcels are of little value which is why they didn't sell at the auction in the first place. Many of these properties are "dangling strips" or "isolated triangles". The former are usually narrow strips anywhere from a few inches to a few feet wide that were left over because of an error in a legal description, a survey or platting error, or a mismeasurement by the Assessor's office. The triangles generally are created when a street or highway cuts through a lot leaving a small isolated triangle cut off from the rest of the lot or block.
The County may try to sell the Tax Title Properties at some future date after the foreclosure sale. Tax Title sale information may be obtained by calling the Real Estate Services at 206-205-5638.
THE TAX FORECLOSURE AUCTION

No King County Employee or officer, or person who is an immediate family member of and residing with a King County employee, may bid at the sale, nor may such person bid as an agent or allow any agent to bid on their behalf. RCW 84.64.080

We do not have a bidder registration requirement.

The minimum bid includes the amount due to the County for the tax, interest, penalties and foreclosure costs. Bidding must be done in person, not by phone or mail. This is an open oral auction, not a sealed bid auction.

Payment by the successful bidder must be made immediately upon winning the bid. Payment must be made by cashier's check, money order, certified check, or cash. NO OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED INCLUDING PERSONAL CHECKS, BUSINESS, CHECKS, CREDIT CARD CHECKS, TRAVELER'S CHECKS, LETTERS OF CREDIT OR SIMILAR. There are no exceptions to this policy. Checks are made payable to the King County Treasury.

Most people bring a cashier's check made payable to the King County Treasury for the maximum amount they are willing to spend, whether they intend to buy just one parcel or bid on several. If the check is for too much, we refund the difference, but if it's not enough you won't have time to run to the bank for more.

Foreclosure section phone number (206) 296-4184.


Related Links

Foreclosure Auction "Terms of Sale"
Foreclosure List
Foreclosure Data Downloads

For "Foreclosure" related questions, e-mail the webmaster at [email protected] or call 206-296-4184.

 

[osan]

Price is a function of subjective valuations of individuals, not exclusively, mostly, or even much in part to do with production costs. In fact, production costs have nothing to do with price. Production costs do though have everything to do with a companies profitability or losses. Therefore, it is entirely factual that the customer does not bear such costs.

Oooo.... d00d, where in heaven did you get such an idea? This is very wrong. Price has much to do with production cost. If you study microeconomics you will learn just how intimately the two are related in that if one cannot get a minimum price for a given product, there is no point in manufacturing it... unless you are engaging in a loss-leader strategy as is the case in many razor-blade industries. But those are somewhat they exceptions. Generally speaking, there is a break-even point WRT cost v. price and if you cannot at least achieve that level of revenue you are committing business suicide.

Are you familiar with NPV analysis and IRR? If not, do some research and you will learn just how intimately related cost and price are.

And that last sentence really makes no sense to me at all. The PAYING customer most certainly bears the marginal costs of the widgets he buys. If the widget is a new-fangled version, he is also bearing his share of the fixed costs associated with production. Why do you think early adopters for items such as cell phones paid today's equivalent of many thousands of dollars for devices that did nothing more than place calls? Why do NEW drugs always cost so much? Because the fixed costs of bringing a new drug to market are utterly STAGGERING and if the manufacturer does not recoup those costs, they will not have the material means for developing others. We can thank government interference in the free market for this, by the way, but that is another story for another time. The customers bear ALL costs, generally speaking. Those costs are built into the price structure and as those costs shift in time in major proportion from fixed to marginal, prices tend to ease. This is a widely observable pattern.

I would like to see you try and run an establishment that has no way for customers to come to your property in a convenient manner. Furthermore, an establishment who charges customers to even come to his commercial establishment in the first place (that is, paying to use storefront pathways, parking lots, roadways, etc.), would find themselves with few customers. There would be many partnerships in commercial areas that provided free use of roads, paths, parking, etc. in a free-society.

Wowe... I take it you have never been to a NYC dance club? You pay to get in and the lines sometimes wrap around the block.

 

[Steven Douglas]

The point is that you are the one who keeps bringing up Marxism in reference to Georgism when you know full well it is intellectually dishonest.

It's apropos. Their disagreements to me are like watching scraps between the left and right wing of the same party.

What do the classical liberals say about property in land? Read what they actually said please. But I know you won't.
http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

I did read what they said. But I'm not a 19th century classical liberal, and I just don't happen to agree with those who advocated land in common and ground rents paid by everyone, regardless of status, to the state as a solution, any more than I agree with the problem I think they misidentified.

Where does he say "collectivize the land"? This is part of the reason why these threads on land and property get so long. You royal libertarians refuse to use correct terminology.

No, that's where common sense trumps the hair-splitting definition torturing semantics I refuse to play along with. I could have said "collectivize/socialize ground rents", and I could differentiate, like EW would like, between titles and ownership - but that would be intellectually dishonest, a steaming pile of dung by any other name. The mechanics and the net effect is all I care about, and will leave disingenuous wordsmiths to their self-deceptive jerk circle. That's their great gobs of lumpy fun. The extent to which an entity has the power to charge rent for a thing, regardless of the rationale, motive, or what you label it, is the extent to which that entity assumes OWNERSHIP over that thing. And when that OWNERSHIP EFFECT is total, as appropriated by the state, that OWNERSHIP OF THAT THING is collectivized. No dip-shitty hair-splitty mental masturbation about possession or title, or the rationale or motives behind it, will mitigate the core essence of the fact that it is "collectivized land".

So I assume you agree with Locke when he says "the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men"?

No, I don't - I agreed with his usage of the word common as it related to INDIVIDUAL rights that happened to be "common" (equal and inherent to EACH - not a collectivized ALL). So there's no use in playing the fallacy of composition card, as if my agreement with one thing said by a man implies acceptance of everything stated by that same man. Locke was just a human and flawed like you, me and everyone else.

On the contrary, Georgists do seek to unviolate Locke's Proviso through the LVT. All that land that is locked up will be freed when landlords realize it is not economically sound to keep it idle. Land prices will drop. More individuals will be able to afford to possess a piece of land.

Wrong. They seek to encourage and violate Locke's Proviso with impunity, by the selling of Violation Indulgences to the highest bidders, while treating EVERYONE, from the poorest to the richest (and ESPECIALLY the poorest) as if they were all nothing but bidders for privilege - the very speculators (et al) who had acted beyond their rights (Locke's Proviso) and as a matter of privilege.

There is nothing about LVT or proposals of its proponents that make a fundamental, principled (non-economic) distinction between residential, agricultural or commercial property, and yet the vast majority of landowners in the world are SINGLE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL. Single homeowners. That's the bulk from whence North Dakota's property tax is sourced. Individuals. Private primary residences. They are all treated as "equal violators" of Locke's Proviso, and without regard for the fact that the average landowner/homeowner with a single residence and a patch of green front and back is not part of that mix, has violated nobody's rights, and caused no violation of Locke's Proviso to begin with.

And here's where I split with Locke. Whatever lands were bought up on speculation, secondary income or other purposes, could very well be subject to LVT. Not primary homes. Fuck factors of production - homes are a basic requirement for life itself, and I do have respect for all first comers whose homes just HAPPEN to be located in an area that increases in value. That's their windfall, that belongs to them and nobody else. I don't buy into the idea that the so-called "best lands" gobbled up by first-comers constitutes a violation to others, or that others have a valid equal "common" claim to the best lands. Not where primary residences are concerned. Period. They are entitled not only to access to title and possession, but actual OWNERSHIP and SECURITY IN THAT OWNERSHIP- including the land rents on their primary residence, which I argue should be theirs as a matter of right.

Yes, it can be. Its called the Citizen's Dividend.

Yes, just as a supreme dictator CAN be benevolent, just as he CAN be brutal and oppressive. With enough vision and integrity, and human wisdom and benevolence, every single political regime on Earth CAN work swimmingly well for everyone. So what? First principles first - and a taxing mechanism or spending intention is not a first principle.

Check out these collectivist government lovers!

James Buchanan
Adam Smith (a juicy favorite patriot to geolibs everywhere)
Francois Quesnay
Milton Friedman (a friend of both the Fed and LVT lovers everywhere)
Frank Chodorov
Albert Jay Nock

OMG! The libertarian movement was infiltrated by statists!

Well, fancy that. ::: mock gasp ::: You weren't stupid enough to think that any general ideology or "movement" was an homogeneous blend of purely common thought and absolute agreement, were you?

Georgists do not argue against exclusive possession.

No, they encourage it, in fact. Come one, come all, the more the merrier, fight/compete amongst yourselves, and take as much of the available land as you'd like. It doesn't matter to a Georgist who possesses the land; whether it's a single Super-rich entity or many not-so-rich, as it's all just revenue to the taxing jurisdiction. May the highest bidder win, the state knows on what side its revenue bread is buttered.

So a wasteland is just as good for human use as fertile soil?

Oh, are you back in an 18th-19th century mindset with regard to land, without a critical modern questioning thought, or are you specifically referring to AGRICULTURAL land? Because we have evolved. We're not an agrarian farming economy any more. I'm talking about primary residences -- HOMES -- setting aside even the now relatively scarce "family farms" for the moment. The basic primary need involved in these cases has NOTHING to do with soil fertility, and indeed most residential land gets NONE of its value from the fertility of the underlying soil. So much for that.

So let me get this straight, you are okay with an LVT as long as its only charged to speculators? If you really believe its their land, their rightful property, then whats wrong with speculation?

I guess you weren't paying attention, then, as this is the one area where I happen to agree, in theory and principle, with Locke. It doesn't matter to me whether it's speculators or the state causing opportunities for LANDOWNERSHIP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT to be withheld from free and natural persons, in violation of Locke's Proviso. I said earlier that not all rights are absolute. Your right to free speech does not extend to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, or yelling into someone's ear through an amplifier at 130 decibels. So I would not consider it unreasonable for the people, the state, to distinguish between land that is owned as a matter of right or merely possessed as a matter of privilege. And that privileged status could very well extend to: secondary residential land, land that of any kind that is possessed by foreigners, corporations and other privileged entities, land that is merely held but not developed, for the sole purpose of withholding, etc.,.

However, until the sharp distinction is made, as matter of first principles, between those acting as a matter of right and those acting as a matter of privilege, I see LVT as just one more revenue stream, one more taxing scheme, and one more means of abuse (even abuse from the tyranny of the majority) with only the most tenuous of checks and balances.

You ignore the fact that Locke declared land the common property of all: "The earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men..."

I did ignore it, because I don't agree with it.

...and distinguishes this common property from private property: "...yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

...and the Earth he requires to live on, the land rents of which are his as a matter of right. Promises of LVT exemptions and dividends are not required where this exists as a right held in Common (meaning "inalienable to each and every individual"). You can stash the exemptions for these particular persons, because the privilege rule need not, and should not (IMO), apply to them. Then are the children (ALONE) free. All else can pay tribute as dictated or required.

Land by itself was never anyone's product of labor and it cannot be rightfully considered property. Locke supports this argument when he states, "When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its private property at all."

Whether the Georgist interpretation matches with Locke or not, any land that is lived on as a primary residence is "being cultivated" in my mind, with a human crop, and rightfully considered property (my normative, in stark opposition to the Georgist/LVT normative that argues otherwise) -- right down to the land rents which rightfully belong to the owner of that home - that primary residence.

Now I do disagree with Locke to an extent here. Land, whether cultivated or uncultivated, can never be considered private property. Only the products of labor can be private property.

Your normative, of course. Your idea of what SHOULD never (not "can never") be considered private property. My normative is in contrast to you both where primary residences are concerned. I don't care if it's a mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean, an average home on a residential street, or a shack on a hilly acre in the Black Hills with single-wide and cars cinder-blocks in the front and backyard -- homes are sacred to me - no power to tax, zero power to destroy, nobody wrongfully deprived of anything in the process. AND -- with all the privileged entities wanting into the market, NO NEED FOR REVENUE sourced from a basic human survival need.

Thomas Paine was right on: "Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

I love Thomas Paine, and don't give two shits about his view on ground rent for land -- but ONLY as it applies to what I feel SHOULD BE the sovereignty of every individual in his or her home. Until that distinction is made, LVT is just another potential for widespread abuse and unintended consequences in the making. Nothing more than a union between the state and the highest bidders on any and all lands - with their attitude that granny and her "unproductive hands" can go take a powder - she doesn't have rights, and no expectation for security in her home -- only a possible promise of exemptions or dividends from what is presumed to be privilege on hers and everyone's part. In Common.

 

[osan]

More and more you're sounding like Roy with your constant repetition and simplistic and dogmatic pronouncements and denouncements.

OK, so I'm a defeated, brainwashed, blinkered liar who is incapable of learning (does that make you the teacher?). I'm also either a clear nut or someone who is paid to infest forums. Does that mean you infested this forum for free?! Say it ain't so! And here along I thought you were raking in the big bucks like me. You just have to know where to apply.

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL! Bad Steven! Bad BAD Steven!

 

[Steven Douglas]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL! Bad Steven! Bad BAD Steven!

I must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oooo.... d00d, where in heaven did you get such an idea? This is very wrong. Price has much to do with production cost. If you study microeconomics you will learn just how intimately the two are related in that if one cannot get a minimum price for a given product, there is no point in manufacturing it... unless you are engaging in a loss-leader strategy as is the case in many razor-blade industries. But those are somewhat they exceptions. Generally speaking, there is a break-even point WRT cost v. price and if you cannot at least achieve that level of revenue you are committing business suicide.

Are you familiar with NPV analysis and IRR? If not, do some research and you will learn just how intimately related cost and price are.

And that last sentence really makes no sense to me at all. The PAYING customer most certainly bears the marginal costs of the widgets he buys. If the widget is a new-fangled version, he is also bearing his share of the fixed costs associated with production. Why do you think early adopters for items such as cell phones paid today's equivalent of many thousands of dollars for devices that did nothing more than place calls? Why do NEW drugs always cost so much? Because the fixed costs of bringing a new drug to market are utterly STAGGERING and if the manufacturer does not recoup those costs, they will not have the material means for developing others. We can thank government interference in the free market for this, by the way, but that is another story for another time. The customers bear ALL costs, generally speaking. Those costs are built into the price structure and as those costs shift in time in major proportion from fixed to marginal, prices tend to ease. This is a widely observable pattern.



Wowe... I take it you have never been to a NYC dance club? You pay to get in and the lines sometimes wrap around the block.

Where in the world did I get such an idea? Perhaps Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Fetter, and Rothbard? Price formation and costs of production are two completely separate concepts and the costs of production de novo have no bearing on prices.

You are talking about as I said earlier, profitability, which again, has nothing to do with prices. Just because it costs you 50$ to make a product, market it, and attempt to sell it doesn't mean the product is worth (valued) or priced at 50$ or more. It could be that it is entirely worthless and priced at zero because no one values it.

The paying customer certainly does not bear any production costs. Production costs are entirely burdensome to the owner of the investment / capital. The reason for the high prices for new technological gadgets is myriad: marginal utility, high demand little supply, etc. Hell, even the wikipedia page for price has this correct and color me surprised when I did a quick check to see how warped they had it...

So, yeah, if you had read any Austrian, or any subjective value economic work then you would know how prices form. Anyways, I'm too tired to write more, suffice to say open any Austrian work and go to price/marginal utility/subjective theory of value sections and read for yourself.