North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

[EcoWarrier]

What assets should a widower sell? Her refrigerator? The copper plumbing? The washer and dryer? Her chair or bed? What planet are you living on where these widows have a Van Gogh hanging over the mantle in a $100,000 house?

You are making a case for people deliberately going into debt and not paying, and then the law should back them up in not paying the debt. A recipe for legal stealing. I'll have some of that. Where is that $4m mortgage?

Property taxes include the building, which distorts. Have it all on land values. The higher the land value tax the less levied on our labors (income tax).

 

[EcoWarrier]

Think he meant progressive as in it progressively increases but i could be wrong.

It is supposed to mean that the more you earn the more you pay. Richer people will pay more than the poor. The video proved that is not the case.

So called progressive taxes, based on income, do "exactly the opposite" to what they say they do. Look at the wealth distribution in the USA, Canada, UK, etc, - that tells you a lot.

Income tax was a temporary tax put in place to fund the Napoleonic wars. The British Tory Party kept them and pushed taxation off land onto the people's production. It is no coincidence that the richest people in the western world are landowners. They pay no tax on their "unearned income".

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services they receive and we are all treated as equals.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Now if I was a widow who wasn't trying to sell the house, how in the fuck would I prove that the house is worth less? I couldn't, and I'd have to pay their higher rates...which will go higher and higher.

They don't have an answer for that because those are details they don't give a fuck about one way or the other. The taxing authority and everyone dependent thereon, can insulate themselves entirely from the bad economies they are so often responsible for creating, and the widow and everyone else affected -- to the point even where their survival is threatened -- can go fuck themselves. Her option is to either pay the higher tax based on the overvaluation of her property, or have a fire sale that recovers its real value in the moment, with the taxing and assessing authority not giving a rat's ass one way or another. Good riddance to old rubbish, make the property available for "more productive hands" (as Roy puts it). And LVT is the master sweeper of old, unproductive human rubbish - the "What have you done for me lately?" Janet Jackson of taxing regimes.

 

[Kluge]

You are making a case for people deliberately going into debt and not paying, and then the law should back them up in not paying the debt. A recipe for legal stealing. I'll have some of that. Where is that $4m mortgage?

Property taxes include the building, which distorts. Have it all on land values. The higher the land value tax the less levied on your labors (income tax).

No, I'm not. There's nothing deliberate that the widower does that makes the city raise her property taxes.

And WTF are you talking about with a $4m mortgage? The widower has paid her home off, there is no mortgage.

 

[Kluge]

They don't have an answer for that because those are details they don't give a fuck about one way or the other. The taxing authority and everyone dependent thereon, can insulate themselves entirely from the bad economies they are so often responsible for creating, and the widow and everyone else affected -- to the point even where their survival is threatened -- can go fuck themselves. Her option is to either pay the higher tax based on the overvaluation of her property, or have a fire sale that recovers its real value in the moment, with the taxing and assessing authority not giving a rat's ass one way or another. Good riddance to old rubbish, make the property available for "more productive hands" (as Roy puts it). And LVT is the master sweeper of old, unproductive human rubbish - the "What have you done for me lately?" Janet Jackson of taxing regimes.

Yes, I've noticed that they conveniently avoid real-world issues and things that actually happened. The neighborhood where this home is located has at least 5 households, some widows, who have to pay these higher taxes and nothing about their homes changed at all. The city just did a sweeping "upvalue" of all the homes so they could collect more taxes.

These are all modest homes, with modest values--these people are on fixed incomes (that do not go up, for the most part), they do not have fancy cars to sell (some don't have cars) or any other significant assets.

But yeah, F 'em, the home that they worked their whole lives for and paid for should be snatched by the city because they're rubbish and don't fit in with their sociopathic scheme. Wonder if they'd wish that on their own grandparents?

 

[Steven Douglas]

Wonder if they'd wish that on their own grandparents?

As committed believers, of course they would - their grandparents would be the first to be thrown under the bus "for the greater good". Let all that socialized Land Rent Recovery catch them in its safety net and cradle them to the grave.

 

[Tod]

It is fact, and the video is correct.

Evidence for this claim? Of course not.

Then you either haven't read, don't understand, or refuse to understand them.

To the extent that government spending on services and infrastructure is not just wasted or stolen by corruption, it is taken by landowners. It is self-evident and indisputable that recovering what they take to pay for what they take is just.

You probably wouldn't; but if you are depriving someone else of opportunity, why wouldn't you expect to compensate them for what you are taking?

Next!

You aren't. But you are forcibly depriving others of opportunity they would otherwise be at liberty to use, and you owe them for what you are taking from them.

You are the one who is stealing from them, when you deprive them of access to benefits their taxes paid for.

Certainly not your description of LVT.

No. You pay for a loaf of bread when you take it out of the store, not when you eat it. If you let it go moldy, it does not mean you don't have to pay for it. Therefore, the fact that you are depriving others of desired services suffices to establish that you owe compensation for them, whether you desire them or not.

Why, when you are already paying landowners full market value for access to them? Why should you pay for them twice so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing nothing?

Like land rent....?

Doubled, because he also had to pay landowners full market value for access to the road.

I thought for a moment about responding to each of your "refutations" but since they are all so full of holes, I'm not even going to bother; it isn't worth my time. It is easy to see why with 1,374 posts you have a red mark for your rep. It is apparent that you either are delusional or just like to stir the pot. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter!

 

[redbluepill]

I thought for a moment about responding to each of your "refutations" but since they are all so full of holes, I'm not even going to bother; it isn't worth my time. It is easy to see why with 1,374 posts you have a red mark for your rep. It is apparent that you either are delusional or just like to stir the pot. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter!

And you bothered to post why?

 

[Tod]

Please explain.

Simple. There are certainly people who, through their labor, will strive to better their condition. A landlord will charge what the market will bear, and that will undo the benefit of those persons' labor, keeping them poor.

However, many who are poor, are poor not because of external forces draining away their labor. Instead, they are poor because they make unwise decisions with the little wealth that they do have or they have limited earning potential (not the sharpest pencils in the drawer). However, if they own their own property free and clear and mere ownership doesn't have a price, (maybe they inherited their parents' house?) then that greatly reduces their living expenses. If we toss a tax on top of their expenses, they become more poor. If they rent, they become more poor.

Far better that a person who wants property of their own be able to own and retain it and be independent than be beholden to some landlord.

If they own their property, and pay no taxes on the ownership, then when they use it as they see fit, including by being a landlord themselves, they are less burdened and freer to make a living as they choose, whether that is through what they do (labor), what they know (profession), or through what they have.

Many have called landlords parasites, but who are they to place more value on labor than on knowledge or ownership? Who are they to say that holding land idle is bad? It isn't bad at all; it is part of good stewardship of the land; it allows nature to exist unmolested.

 

[Tod]

And you bothered to post why?

That is exactly what I thought when I read Roy L's post and now yours.

 

[Tod]

Agreed, income tax is worse than just about any other tax. You dont make people pay more for working harder.

If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do. It is called accountability. I work hard driving a truck around all day, you bet I should pay for my wear and tear on the roads. And that is just one example.

 

[Vampire]

When did property taxes ever steal an elderly widow's home and send her out on the street?? When?

An inability to pay property taxes has resulted in the confiscation and sale of one's assets. This is not hard to find, as state and county websites have the information there about what steps they take when an individual is unable to pay their property taxes. Some of the methods are such things called tax liens and tax deeds. Some states do not engage in selling tax deed certificate's, but will freeze assets and confiscate an individuals property, to later auction it off anyway.

- - - - -A seizure and sale is an action we may take if all other attempts to collect your tax debt have failed. A tax warrant must be filed before we seize and sell your real and personal property.

How to avoid seizure - The best way to avoid seizure of your property is to pay your debt as soon as possible. If you have difficulty paying, make an immediate and continuing effort to voluntarily work with us on a mutually agreeable solution to your problem.

How the process works

your assets are seized
if prior to the sale we reach a mutually agreeable solution, we will return your property
we will notify you of the intended sale date
your property will be sold at public aution for at least fair market value
we send you an accounting of the sale
if the proceeds exceed your debt and the department's expenses, we will return the remainder to you ---- This is from NY state.



So yes, an inability to pay property taxes to the state can result in the confiscation of the property you own.

 

[SantanJ]

Very disappointed to read the morons in ND couldn't figure it out. If you're paying yearly taxes/fees on something you "own" you don't "own" anything.

Regardless of your opinions on the property tax, calling them morons makes YOU seem unintelligent and intolerant.

There is nothing moronic over choosing a knocn tax over and unknown one.

If you think that the government would simply do with less money coming in, then YOU are the moron.

The people of North Dakota simply said that they would prefer to keep things the way they are..where they KNOWN what they are going to be taxed on, and were teh vast majority of people are easily able to manage that tax, over whatever NEW source of income the government might try to come up with which, in all probablility, might end up costing homeowners MORE money .

There is nothing moronic about that.

And seriously..learn to debate without resorting to childish name calling, because it only hurts you. And really, it shows YOU to be the moron for thinking that no one could EVER have a differing opinion than you without being wrong. I hate to break it to you, but everything you believe is not inherently correct.

 

[osan]

Yes. States with high property tax rates - NH, NJ, TX, WI, OR, etc. -- did not experience the bubble on the scale that low property tax states like CA, NV, FL and AZ did.

I don't know if you are an outright liar or just ignorant. I can speak for NY/NJ because I am a native and most of my family and friends are there. NJ got fucking HAMMERED. In 1987 I bought a salt box in Monmouth Battlefield state park, somewhat over priced at 170K. It sold just prior to the bubble for 660K! It is now worth about 1/3 of that, the buyer having eaten a huge loss. In the wealthy town of Freehold the McMansions are for sale literally by the hundreds to this very day. Some of them have been vacant 3+ years. Their real estate markets crashed most spectacularly - my mother's house had appraised upward of $700K and is now around 250 or less.

The popular areas of NY such as Westchester saw prices go up almost as steeply as NJ and came crashing right back down. The boonies did not see the same crash because their markets never went up much and it had NOTHING to do with property taxes but rather the fact that there are no jobs there. I can get a beutiful farm in NY state with good acreage and a huge house for $200K and I will see hell freeze solid to the core before I will find work.

Your assertion is unvarnished baloney. You are trying to establish a causal connection between tax rates and housing bubbles. One would think that if you were going to attempt to convince people of this nonsense that you would at least have given it a reasonably convincing try instead of this... I don't even know what to call it, though "pathetic" is perhaps the best adjective I could attach to "effort". Ultra-fail.

As for Prop 13, I was a CA resident when that was passed and it has NOTHING to do with CA's fiscal troubles. That states woeful condition stems entirely from the rapacious spending on "social" programs. If the CA state government pulled back its operations to those justifiable functions, that state's looming fiscal death would vanish into thin air.

As for your other idiotic assertion that the "authorities" will not take away your property if you fail to pay your real estate taxes, that is yet another steaming pile. But don't take my word for it. Go to your local tax office and ask them what the procedure is and they will tell you. I absolutely guarantee that the ultimate disposition will be confiscation. Have you never heard of a tax lien? Have you never heard of a tax lien sale? Thousands of homes are confiscated on tax liens every year all over the USA. Tax liens can be very profitable for those with the stomach to buy them and then boot the occupants. This is done EVERY DAY of EVERY YEAR. I doubt that a single day has passed in the past 40 years where someone has not been evicted from their home by a sheriff for not having paid their taxes.

I should not be feeding this massive troll but I got my hay in today and decided to indulge myself a bit. Let's hear it for the hay! WOOT.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If by working harder they are using services provided more, you do. It is called accountability. I work hard driving a truck around all day, you bet I should pay for my wear and tear on the roads. And that is just one example.

Poor analogy aside, you forget that the service and institution you are talking about is a monopoly - right? Sure, you should pay more the more you use a service, and any good business does so (sans electronic things like the internet that are ridiculously cheap for mass usage), but you have no way to determine what that price should be or how much, and if you want to use their particular service or not because they hold a monopoly on its provision. It's unjust from the outset, and no amount of pretending that the situation is one of ideal circumstance changes the fundamental nature of the situation.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Regardless of your opinions on the property tax, calling them morons makes YOU seem unintelligent and intolerant.

There is nothing moronic over choosing a knocn tax over and unknown one.

If you think that the government would simply do with less money coming in, then YOU are the moron.

The people of North Dakota simply said that they would prefer to keep things the way they are..where they KNOWN what they are going to be taxed on, and were teh vast majority of people are easily able to manage that tax, over whatever NEW source of income the government might try to come up with which, in all probablility, might end up costing homeowners MORE money .

There is nothing moronic about that.

And seriously..learn to debate without resorting to childish name calling, because it only hurts you. And really, it shows YOU to be the moron for thinking that no one could EVER have a differing opinion than you without being wrong. I hate to break it to you, but everything you believe is not inherently correct.

The people.....can you please show me what this 'people' looks like and introduce me to him or her? If the people said murder or robbery was preferable and therefore shall be legal, does that make it any more moral, ethical, or authoritative? I think not. Besides, 'people' can't vote. Only individuals vote.

 

[Tod]

Poor analogy aside, you forget that the service and institution you are talking about is a monopoly - right? Sure, you should pay more the more you use a service, and any good business does so (sans electronic things like the internet that are ridiculously cheap for mass usage), but you have no way to determine what that price should be or how much, and if you want to use their particular service or not because they hold a monopoly on its provision. It's unjust from the outset, and no amount of pretending that the situation is one of ideal circumstance changes the fundamental nature of the situation.

Why would I need to determine what the price of usage should be? I merely look at a price and decide if the service is worth the price to me and me alone. If it isn't worth it, I don't use the service or use it less. That holds true whether the service is provided by a monopoly or not. If the service is not a monopoly, there is more likely to be a better price, but that is beside the point.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Why would I need to determine what the price of usage should be? I merely look at a price and decide if the service is worth the price to me and me alone. If it isn't worth it, I don't use the service or use it less. That holds true whether the service is provided by a monopoly or not. If the service is not a monopoly, there is more likely to be a better price, but that is beside the point.

Tod, he's just saying that with an income tax, or with any taxation, it's nothing like paying for a service. The "service provider," our friend the State, is holding a gun to your head, to my head, to everyone's heads, telling us all exactly:

What services you WILL be provided
How much you WILL pay for them
That you will NOT try to go elsewhere for them nor avoid using these "services"
That NO ONE will compete with them on THEIR turf (which they have arbitrarily decided is the entire continent, from sea to sea)
That you WILL sit down
That you WILL shut up, and
That you WILL like it!

Or die. That's the deal.

It's a deal we don't really like. We don't really approve of it.

 

[Tod]

Tod, he's just saying that with an income tax, or with any taxation, it's nothing like paying for a service. The "service provider," our friend the State, is holding a gun to your head, to my head, to everyone's heads, telling us all exactly:

What services you WILL be provided
How much you WILL pay for them
That you will NOT try to go elsewhere for them nor avoid using these "services"
That NO ONE will compete with them on THEIR turf (which they have arbitrarily decided is the entire continent, from sea to sea)
That you WILL sit down
That you WILL shut up, and
That you WILL like it!

Or die. That's the deal.

It's a deal we don't really like. We don't really approve of it.

Ah, if that is the point being made, I completely missed it. I thought this was about the most neutral form of taxation, not whether taxation was good or bad. In that case, I agree, it is most certainly best to make services optional and competitive if at all possible.

Thanks, Helmuth

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ah, if that is the point being made, I completely missed it.

That was the original point, but I feel like that's not what Austrian Econ Disciple was really talking about. I could be wrong.

I hope that New Hampshire keeps cutting their state budget heroically (make it 20% this time, guys!) and the time can come when the schools are spun off and they can get rid of their property tax. Or maybe North Dakota can try again. Or somewhere else. Sooner or later, we should be able to get this through somewhere.