North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

[Gumba of Liberty]

Funny, I don't believe anyone owns land.

You are no more free than anyone who is deprived of their liberty to use what nature provided.

The question is, how am I different from a landowner, claiming to own land on no more basis than my claim to own you?

If land is not ownable then who makes it so? Does government? I would rather suffer under the tyranny of one small landowner than suffer under the State. If you allow the State to tax private land then you are allowing the State to grow and liberty to shrink. I would not agree to such a policy.

 

[Zippyjuan]

What does "average property tax rate" mean? Measured how?

Nonsense. Weather's nice in OR, and it wasn't hit much.

Non sequitur.

If you read my post or followed the link you could have seen that the national average property tax rate for states was 1.38%. But that's OK- here- let me give it for you again since you missed it. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/11leonhardt-avgproptaxrates.html The list of state averages was compiled by Moody's and published in this case by the New York Times. How were you determining who had high and low tax rates?

Nonsense. Weather's nice in OR, and it wasn't hit much.

Those who prefer sunshine (which aside from Michigan the others have lots of). Yeah, Texas did OK too. So you would be right- weather is not much more help than the property tax rates in predicing which states would be hit hard by the housing bubble.

Lowest average state property tax rates according to my link (which according to your theory should have had it the worst in the housing crisis):
1) Hawaii 0.40%
2) Alabama 0.65%
3) California 0.68%
4) New Mexico 0.72%
5) Arkansas 0.88%
6) West Virginia (0.95%)
7) Louisiana (1.02%)
8) Oklahoma (1.03%)
9) Tennessee (1.07%)
10) Colorado (1.08%)



Only one of those ten lowest average property tax states (California) also made the list of Ten Worst Hit States:
(the first five I listed earlier):
1) Nevada
2) Florida
3) Arizona
4) California
5) Michigan

The next five:
6) Idaho
7) Rhode Island
8) Georgia
9) Washington
10) Maryland

Source on that: http://247wallst.com/2012/02/29/states-with-the-most-miserable-housing-markets/2/

 

[Steven Douglas]

The four states that got hit the hardest were states where property taxes were low and declining. States with high property taxes avoided the worst of the bubble.

Why do you think the high property taxes stopped the harmful effects of the bubble? What makes you so sure that it was the property taxes that saved these states from a worse outcome?

Maybe it's because he's pulling stats completely out of his rear end and drawing meaningless conclusions about them.

The states hit hardest by bubble crash were California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. See anything special about them in terms of property tax? Do those four states pop out at you in a way that would cause anyone to have an "ah ha!" moment?

There is ZERO correlation, let alone causation that could be deduced, between high or low property taxes and how a state fared in the housing bubble collapse.


According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the lowest property taxes (where speculation and devastation caused bu\y the crash should have been most rampant by Roy's logic) are:

1. Louisiana - 0.18%
2. Hawaii - 0.26%
3. Alabama - 0.33%
4. Delaware - 0.43%
5. West Virginia - 0.49%
6. South Carolina - 0.50%
7. Arkansas - 0.52%
8. Mississippi - 0.52%
9. New Mexico - 0.55%
10. Wyoming - 0.58%

Nothing to see here, most of these states were more or less unaffected.

According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the highest property taxes are:

1. New Jersey - 1.89%
2. New Hampshire - 1.86%
3. Texas - 1.81%
4. Wisconsin - 1.76%
5. Nebraska - 1.70%
6. Illinois - 1.73%
7. Connecticut - 1.63%
8. Michigan - 1.62%
9. Vermont - 1.59%
10. North Dakota - 1.42%

None of the top four are on this list either, and yet most of these states -- the TOP TEN in terms of highest property taxes -- suffered as more affluent states that were hit quite hard by the crash.

The four states hit hardest by the bubble collapse were quite average in terms of property taxes:

State, Property Tax as a percentage of home value, and national ranking:

Arizona - .72% - Rank 35
California - .74% - Rank 33
Nevada - .97% - Rank 24
Florida - .84% -Rank 23

Thus completely and absolutely falsifying Roy's "low property tax" causation theory.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

Wrong. If you don't pay LVT, you just don't get to keep depriving the community of the opportunity. You don't get thrown in a cage, or lose any rightful property, or have your wages garnisheed, or anything else.

I don't advocate it. How do you rationalize forcibly removing people's rights to liberty?

Sure but what if two different communities claim ownership upon the same land. Who gets it? How is it disputed? Would not this lead to increased power for the State and decreased liberty for the people?

I agree that land is a special commodity but I disagree that land ownership should be determined by anything other than: "Hey they've been living here a while haven't they?" First come, first serve, works for me.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Maybe it's because he's pulling stats completely out of his rear end and drawing meaningless conclusions about them.

The states hit hardest by bubble crash were California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. See anything special about them in terms of property tax? Do those four states pop out at you in a way that would cause anyone to have an "ah ha!" moment?

There is ZERO correlation, let alone causation that could be deduced, between high or low property taxes and how a state fared in the housing bubble collapse.

Your argument is confusing. You say high property taxes (referring to high property tax bills in terms of dollars) as must people refer to high property taxes. But, later in your post you mentioned high property taxes,specifically referring to the property tax rates. You cannot switch back and forth between the 2 interchangeably and not expect to confuse people.

I agreed with some of what you were saying but was too confused by what you did to completely follow what you were saying.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Your argument is confusing. You say high property taxes (referring to high property tax bills in terms of dollars) as must people refer to high property taxes. But, later in your post you mentioned high property taxes,specifically referring to the property tax rates. You cannot switch back and forth between the 2 interchangeably and not expect to confuse people.

I can see where that could cause confusion. I threw in the map (not rate but median paid by county) to make the point that it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a high rate or a high amount paid - there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between either and how a state fared in the collapse.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The four states that got hit the hardest were states where property taxes were low and declining. States with high property taxes avoided the worst of the bubble.

I agree with the point that there is no corelation between high or low property tax rates and problems experienced in the housing crisis.

My figures came to the same conclusion.

My lists only found one of the ten lowest average property tax rate states also made the list of ten worst states in the housing crisis. No other names on the two lists are the same (total of 19 states between the two lists).

 

[Roy L]

If land is not ownable then who makes it so?

Its inherent identity.

Does government?

No, government only makes land (legally) ownable. It was already unownable before there were any governments.

I would rather suffer under the tyranny of one small landowner than suffer under the State.

Then you're a fool who prefers feudalism -- government by private landowner, as in Saudi Arabia -- to republican democracy, and Somalia to Slovenia.

If you allow the State to tax private land

What would make land private in the first place, other than a state decree? It didn't start out private, and there is no way it could rightfully become private.

then you are allowing the State to grow and liberty to shrink.

Garbage. The state is the only thing that can secure liberty against shrinkage by private tyrants.

I would not agree to such a policy.

Yes, well, you don't know what you are talking about, as we've already established. All you do is chant your "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense.

 

[Kluge]

It's not your land, and whim has nothing to do with it, stop lying.

That's the beauty of recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit: you pay the exact right amount, because government can't get any more than by asking for the exact right amount.

It is not your property, and it is the landowner who does the stealing, which might explain why he is the one getting rich without doing anything productive, stop lying.

You're fucking creepy, dude, and chock full of gibberish.

 

[jclay2]

How did the people of ND vote against this measure 3 to 1? Seriously WTF? People really do choose to build the prisons they are housed in. To bad they take the rest of the freedom loving people for the ride. I just want to be able to live without having 50 percent of my paycheck taken from me annually. I guess the people of ND don't see it this way.

 

[kahless]

Only a Communist would be in favor on denying a persons ability to own private property outright. Those posting in favor off property taxes are the biggest threat to true freedom in my life time.

It is bad enough now seeing people whom paid their entire lives for their homes only to lose it with one missed tax payment. Senior citizens especially who their entire lives paid for and own their property are being put out in the street due to the scumbags that support property taxes.

If there is ever a civil war in this country, this issue will likely play a large role combined with the devaluation of the US dollar making it impossible for people to pay property taxes. This is exactly what the Communists in both parties want in their quest to fulfill the #1 plank of the manifesto. Of course they will never call it Communism.

 

[shane77m]

How did the people of ND vote against this measure 3 to 1? Seriously WTF? People really do choose to build the prisons they are housed in. To bad they take the rest of the freedom loving people for the ride. I just want to be able to live without having 50 percent of my paycheck taken from me annually. I guess the people of ND don't see it this way.

I am just speculating but they were probably scared they would not have the police, fire department, schools and etc. I imagine the pro-tax folks put out a lot of fear mongering propaganda to convince people that the state would drift off into a black hole without property taxes.

 

[Danan]

One can own land like one can own everything else. Just because it doesn't necessarily need to be transformed by human labor to be "owned" doesn't mean that it can't be owned/everybody owns it. That's just completely esoteric reasoning. Your claim to own something has nothing to do with it. Everyone who argues to have a better claim than you do has to prove that to a third party (court).

For LVT-people LVT does not harm the non aggression principle because "society" owns all land and has a right to demand any fee they like - just like the king did in old monarchies. I call that BS. Most people would agree that you can in fact own land. They only support property taxes because they don't care for the non-aggression principle and aren't libertarians.


But I have one question to any LVT-supporter: Why is it that only US citizens collectively own all the land of the US? That doesn't make any sense. If nature created all land and it's value and homesteading is not a viable way to gain property why do people living in California have a right to benefit from wealth creation on New York's soil but people living in Ottawa, New Mexico and Paris don't? It's nice to see that LVT-people are nationalists who don't care for individualism.

Or do you favour a world government that collects LVT on the whole planet and distributes the revenue?

 

[Roy L]

Only a Communist would be in favor on denying a persons ability to own private property outright.

We do not deny rightful property in products of labor, stop lying.

Only a greed-besotted, lying sack of $#!+ thinks everything should be private property.

Really? The earth's atmosphere should be private property, so we have to pay some greedy swine rent for air to breathe? The alphabet should be private property, so we have to pay royalties to the greedy owners of each letter every time we use it?

REALLY??

Give your silly head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall out.

Those posting in favor off property taxes are the biggest threat to true freedom in my life time.

What a stupid lie. Do you understand that America's Founding Fathers made a property tax on land the sole source of federal revenue in the Articles of Confederation?

It is bad enough now seeing people whom paid their entire lives for their homes only to lose it with one missed tax payment.

That has never happened, stop lying.

Senior citizens especially who their entire lives paid for and own their property are being put out in the street due to the scumbags that support property taxes.

Only lying sacks of $#!+ make such claims, which have never been documented, ever.

If there is ever a civil war in this country, this issue will likely play a large role combined with the devaluation of the US dollar making it impossible for people to pay property taxes.

Why even bother making such stupid claims?

This is exactly what the Communists in both parties want in their quest to fulfill the #1 plank of the manifesto. Of course they will never call it Communism.

Because it wouldn't be.

 

[shane77m]

Go on a shopping spree.

http://www.revenue.alabama.gov/advalorem/transcript/transcript.htm

 

[Roy L]

One can own land like one can own everything else.

I see. So, one can own people, numbers, letters of the alphabet, the earth's atmosphere, the sun, everything?

Give your silly head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jelly beans fall out.

Just because it doesn't necessarily need to be transformed by human labor to be "owned" doesn't mean that it can't be owned/everybody owns it.

Yes, it does, because that means owning it inherently violates others' rights to liberty just as much as owning numbers, people, or the sun would.

That's just completely esoteric reasoning.

It is indisputable fact. When you claim to own land, you purpose to remove my right to liberty.

Your claim to own something has nothing to do with it. Everyone who argues to have a better claim than you do has to prove that to a third party (court).

I see. So the letters of the alphabet are all someone's property, we just don't know whose until a court decides?

What a stupid load of garbage.

For LVT-people LVT does not harm the non aggression principle because "society" owns all land and has a right to demand any fee they like

Stop telling such stupid lies. No one can rightly own land, but government has the job of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. It CANNOT do that without LVT. It is logically impossible, because exclusive tenure removes others' rights to liberty.

- just like the king did in old monarchies.

The kings in old monarchies WERE THE LANDOWNERS. Just like in Saudi Arabia, the Saud family owns the whole country.

I call that BS.

Everything you have said so far is BS, and I have proved it.

Most people would agree that you can in fact own land.

At one time, most people agreed that you could in fact own slaves. So?

They only support property taxes because they don't care for the non-aggression principle and aren't libertarians.

There is a difference between true libertarians and feudal "libertarians":

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

But I have one question to any LVT-supporter: Why is it that only US citizens collectively own all the land of the US?

No one owns it.

That doesn't make any sense.

Your brainless garbage doesn't make any sense.

If nature created all land and it's value

Government and the community created its value. Nature created its physical qualities.

and homesteading is not a viable way to gain property why do people living in California have a right to benefit from wealth creation on New York's soil but people living in Ottawa, New Mexico and Paris don't?

The US government can only exercise its function of securing and reconciling people's rights in the area where it is sovereign.

It's nice to see that LVT-people are nationalists who don't care for individualism.

It's nice to see that anti-LVT liars always lie.

Or do you favour a world government that collects LVT on the whole planet and distributes the revenue?

No.

 

[Roy L]

Maybe it's because he's pulling stats completely out of his rear end and drawing meaningless conclusions about them.

Lie.

The states hit hardest by bubble crash were California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. See anything special about them in terms of property tax? Do those four states pop out at you in a way that would cause anyone to have an "ah ha!" moment?

There is ZERO correlation, let alone causation that could be deduced, between high or low property taxes and how a state fared in the housing bubble collapse.

Maybe because property tax AMOUNT is not property tax RATE? All your map shows is the median property tax payment for counties. So the dark colors are just places where there are large, valuable farms, wealthy communities, etc.

According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the lowest property taxes (where speculation and devastation caused bu\y the crash should have been most rampant by Roy's logic) are:

1. Louisiana - 0.18%
2. Hawaii - 0.26%
3. Alabama - 0.33%
4. Delaware - 0.43%
5. West Virginia - 0.49%
6. South Carolina - 0.50%
7. Arkansas - 0.52%
8. Mississippi - 0.52%
9. New Mexico - 0.55%
10. Wyoming - 0.58%

Nothing to see here, most of these states were more or less unaffected.

According to the Tax Foundation, the states with the highest property taxes are:

1. New Jersey - 1.89%
2. New Hampshire - 1.86%
3. Texas - 1.81%
4. Wisconsin - 1.76%
5. Nebraska - 1.70%
6. Illinois - 1.73%
7. Connecticut - 1.63%
8. Michigan - 1.62%
9. Vermont - 1.59%
10. North Dakota - 1.42%

None of the top four are on this list either, and yet most of these states -- the TOP TEN in terms of highest property taxes -- suffered as more affluent states that were hit quite hard by the crash.

How are these property tax rates being calculated? Evidence that most of the top ten were hit hard?

The only way to calculate property tax rate is by dividing total property tax revenue by total property value. By that measure, CA, NV, FL and AZ are all low property tax states.

The four states hit hardest by the bubble collapse were quite average in terms of property taxes:

State, Property Tax as a percentage of home value, and national ranking:

Arizona - .72% - Rank 35
California - .74% - Rank 33
Nevada - .97% - Rank 24
Florida - .84% -Rank 23

Thus completely and absolutely falsifying Roy's "low property tax" causation theory.

Nope. In CA, for example, the rate is almost meaningless, as assessments are artificially held far below market by Prop 13.

 

[Roy L]

How did the people of ND vote against this measure 3 to 1? Seriously WTF? People really do choose to build the prisons they are housed in. To bad they take the rest of the freedom loving people for the ride. I just want to be able to live without having 50 percent of my paycheck taken from me annually. I guess the people of ND don't see it this way.

They do. And unlike you, they understand that high property taxes are a way to REDUCE TOTAL taxes. See NH.

 

[EcoWarrier]

ND has to look ahead. It appears short term vote winning stunts are at hand here.

Property tax? What is the property? The buildings or the land? Property is the buildings - the CAPITAL. LAND is not property. It is collectively owned with title, a set of rights, given to parcels of land.

By all means it is desirable to eliminate taxes on the property, but not the land. Tax the land by its value, all land. Have a single state/city tax - only LVT, nothing else.

ND is about to become a petro economy. The income from shale oil and gas must be invested in the state, for infrastructure, education, training in non-petro industries, etc, to give a mixed economy. When the oil runs out the state will be self-supporting and not end up a ghost state, like ex mining towns when the gold or ores run out. Look at what Johannesburg did. An ex mining town but via LVT stopped the city becoming a ghost town projecting the city to be an economic powerhouse. Look at:
Jo'burg should have died years ago


Tax the land by its values to ensure land does not end up in the hands of a few people. Then land prices will not rise to ridiculous levels, as it did in Aberdeen in Scotland when it became an oil boom town. LVT can pay for state and city services and promote enterprise. This eliminates any other state or city taxes. Any surplus can be paid back to the people in a Citizens Dividend. Oil income can pay for future investment and nothing else.

By not doing the above the future kids of ND are going to hate their grandparents when the oil runs out.

 

[Tod]

This video sums up how the LVT would create a JUST and FREE society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc

The premise of the video is wrong because it assumes that if only people had a chance, they would not be poor. That somehow, if we could only get them out from under this evil monopolist, they would cease to be poor. That is just plain false. While some people might be less likely to be poor, others would be MORE likely to be poor.

So far none of these posts have convinced me that tax on land is "just". Suppose I want to live a self-sufficient lifestyle out in the boondocks somewhere, not interested in participating in society. Why should I have to pay any tax at all? I want nothing to do with anyone and wouldn't care if there was water service, garbage service, roads or any of the rest of the "benefits" of society. Why should I be penalized for merely existing and owning something? Why should other people be able to steal from me in order to pay for "benefits" that THEY want? What is "just" about that?

Shouldn't payment of a tax be based upon receiving a desired service? If I want to drive on roads, I should pay a tax to pay for their construction/maintenance, etc. Indirect benefits can be paid for through costs that include what someone had to pay to receive a benefit. e.g. if I want to buy a product that gets brought to me via truck, included in the cost of that product is tax that the trucker had to pay for the road.