North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

[kahless]

The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes. One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.

Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system.

I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person. A single Communist on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.

 

[EcoWarrier]

If someone bought and paid for the land ,how are they a free loader?

The landowners did not create the increased value in the land - economic community activity did that. They created the economic growth.

Land Value Taxation does not tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth, pubic & private, soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values - that is where land values come from. This is economics, not an opinion. Land Value Tax merely reclaims that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized by the landowner. The landowner is free-loader. It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services.

Inflation is nothing to do with it. Car lose value.Buildings on land lose value - both are CAPITAL.

Understand the above.

 

[EcoWarrier]

The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.

That is free-loading - appropriating community created wealth for private gain.
Believe me I am not Roy.

I like Commie allegations. Terrific! When defeated cal them a Commie. Hilarious.

 

[robert9712000]

The landowners did not create the increased value in the land - community activity did that.

Land Value Taxation does not tax the land you occupy. Community created economic growth, pubic & private, soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values - that is where land values come from. This is economics, not an opinion. Land Value Tax merely reclaims that growth and puts it back into the cycle to fund the infrastructure that aided the creation in the first place. Currently the cycle is cut and a giant sluice is inserted taking away that wealth in the form of windfalls in the land market - socially created wealth is privatized by the landowner. The landowner is free-loader. It needs to be 180 degrees the other the way around. LVT reclaims community created wealth to pay for community services.

Inflation is nothing to do with it. Car lose value.Buildings on land lose value - both are CAPITAL.

Understand the above.

They lose value because they deteriorate over time and become worthless.Land doesn't deteriorate like a car or house,so like other commodities its increase in price is only changed by supply and demand and inflation.

Like i said ,base a items value or increase of on purchasing power not its current market price.

 

[priest_of_syrinx]

Good on ND. I'd move there if it wasn't such a shitty place to live. Hopefully they pass it and more states have a look once it's proven a success.

Hey! I love ND!!

But I don't love that Measure 2 failed.

 

[kahless]

That is free-loading - appropriating community created wealth. Believe me I am not Roy.

Scenario 1:

I purchase property and own it outright, I maintain it and am not using any government services. If I decide I want security (what you call police protection) then I chose whether or not to pay for that service. Fire and EMS is volunteer and they are funded by donations in which I contribute. I live in a private community where we maintain and service our roads.

This is not free loading.

Scenario 2:

I live in a town where the city holds a monopoly on services to property owners. Property owners are forced to pay to the government monopoly for these services through property taxes. In this scenario if I refuse then maybe you have an argument that it is free loading. However the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly in providing services to land owners.

Property owners should be able to chose whom provides such services. If you do not believe all taxation is theft then the tax burden for services should be distributed evenly to all citizens since all are using these services rather then a heavy property tax burden on a limited number of property owners.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Scenario 1:

I purchase property and own it outright, I maintain it and am not using any government services.

You buy title to the land which is a set of right. The state owns the land. That is how it is.

If I decide I want security (what you call police protection) then I chose whether or not to pay for that service. Fire and EMS is volunteer and they are funded by donations in which I contribute. I live in a private community where we maintain and service our roads.

This is not free loading.

You do not chose if you want police or fire, etc. It is given by the community. You do not pay for the police by throwing money into buckets in Main St? The land you have, title is granted by the state. The land gains in value which the landowner did not create. Appropriating that value is free-loading.

I live in a town where the city holds a monopoly on services to property owners.

They do anyhow.

Property owners are forced to pay to the government monopoly for these services through property taxes. In this scenario if I refuse then maybe you have an argument that it is free loading. However the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly in providing services to land owners.

You are repaying waelth created by someone else. This wealth is used to provide service to all.

Property owners should be able to chose whom provides such services.

I can't believe this. You want to chose which police force protects you?

 

[EcoWarrier]

An enterprising, productive man goes to a realtors office in a town wanting to build a factory, so needs some land for the factory.

The agent says:

"I have the ideal plot". She takes him 45 minutes out of town via a fast highway, 30 minutes down a small road, 10 minutes across track and points to the land surrounded by scrub. "There it is", she states, "$5,000".​

He said:

"there is nothing here. No electricity, roads, water, buildings, people, nothing".​

She says

"I have another the size you want." They drive back to town.
​

The plot is in town near to:

• A rapid-transit rail station,
• A fast road with modern tramcars on it,
• Bus routes,
• A housing estate
• Great schools,
• A world renowned hospital,
• Excellent university,
• Police station - Crime is low because of the excellent well funded police force,
• Fire House - the fire department is top rated and swift to emergencies,
• All utility services are adjacent to the plot, etc.
• A pool of high skills - skills base of the people is very high,

She says:

"it has all the top class services you need here".​

He says:

"ideal, wonderful, who do I make the $5,000 out to?".​

She says:

"it is $1,005,000, as it has all the top class services".​

He said:

"It is the same size as the first plot. But mmm, well OK, I'll pay that, as it is ideal, who are the people, and their addresses, I send the cheques to who provide these wonderful top-class service?".
​

She says:

"no you have to pay the $1,005,000 to a man who lives near the beach in the Florida and lays on it most of the day".​

He says:

"well its the same size as the out of town $5,000 plot, so I will send him $5,000 and cheques to those who provide the top-class services".​

She says:

"no all has to go to the landowner laying on the beach in Florida".​

He says:

"how do these people pay to provide all these services then?"​

She says:

"well you pay Property Tax, Income Tax, Sales Tax on the goods you sell, tax to the council and government and all sorts of other fees and taxes, and they provide the services".​

He replies:

"well I pay for these services twice then, that doesn't sound fair at all".​

She says:

"well yes, you pay once to the landowning man laying on the beach in Florida and again to the authorities. He does not pay taxes on this plot as it is not used".
​

Land Valuation Tax (LVT) on the urban plot would pay for the services. The value is higher on the urban plot than the out of town plot which will pay less LVT as its value is less because of the lack of demand because of no services.

The winner is the free-loading landowner who got rich in his sleep and laying on the beach, who paid sweet nothing for the services that made his land valuable. The man of enterprise and production is paying twice.

Next time you buy land or a house, think of that. It is not an American thing to pay twice for something.​

 

[Roy L]

That isn't what Roy asked for at all. Were you not paying any attention at all? Anyone here can produce examples of homes that were sold at auction for a tax lien filed for non-payment of property taxes. Roy specifically asked for people to come up with a single documented case where a house was STOLEN (the operative word) by tax authorities. That was his lame attempt to drive the point home that a tax lien sale is based on a "legitimate" debt, and therefore not "theft" on anyone's part.

No, there is also the equally important fact that a tax lien sale only recovers the debt owing. Any surplus is returned to the property owner, as with mortgage repossessions. And given the fact that property taxes are typically less than 1% of value, that's often a large sum of money -- unless the owner hasn't been paying for a very long time, and hasn't had the brains to figure out they need to scale back their consumption of community-provided benefits. Calling it "stealing" the old widow's home is therefore nothing but a stupid lie.

 

[Dianne]

The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes. One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.

Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system.


I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person. A single Communist on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.

Is there such a place in the US?

 

[Roy L]

Land doesn't deteriorate like a car or house,so like other commodities its increase in price is only changed by supply and demand and inflation.

No. Unlike the supply of commodities, the supply of land is fixed, so it acts like a collectible: price is detemined solely by demand. In real terms, the price of virtually every commodity is far lower than it was 100 years ago because production is so much higher. Gold and oil are about the only two that have held their real value. But the real value of land is far higher than it was 100 years ago, because supply is fixed. That's why the land market is always inherently a monopoly market.

Like i said ,base a items value or increase of on purchasing power not its current market price.

Indecipherable.

 

[EcoWarrier]

They lose value because they deteriorate over time and become worthless.Land doesn't deteriorate like a car or house,so like other commodities its increase in price is only changed by supply and demand and inflation.

Like i said ,base a items value or increase of on purchasing power not its current market price.

Land is ineleastic. If the president said there will only be one million cars in the USA and no more made, and only parts made for them. The prices of cars will rise by the year because the supply is inelastic - like LAND. But now, as many cars can be made that sell so the price drops as they deteriorate.

Land prices also rise because of the economic benefit the location gives.

You can take cheap LABOR from Alabama to NYC
You can take cheap CAPITAL (say cars) from Alabama to NYC
You cannot take cheap LAND from Alabama to NYC

Land is different to anything you can ever buy. The price reacts differently to anything you can ever buy.

 

[Roy L]

If someone bought and paid for the land ,how are they a free loader?

They paid the wrong party, like someone who pays a slave's earnings to his owner.

If someone bought and paid for a slave, how are they a freeloader?

The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that if you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while if you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights. When all the land is owned as private property, it's no different from all the people being owned as slaves, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in places where government does not make provision to rescue them from the enslavement inherent in removal of their rights to liberty by landowning, like Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, or Bangladesh.

I do not owe society money simply because i exist or because i use roads or other services.

You owe the community for what you take from others by owning the land: their liberty to access and use the advantages government, the community and nature provide at that location.

i pay for those through sales and income tax.

No, you don't. There is no relation between your sales and income tax payments and the amount of deprivation you impose on others. That is very much the point. Sales and income taxes are just ways of forcing producers and consumers to give welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners.

Your also misunderstanding what is value.The main reason land once worth 100 is now 100000 isnt because the community made it worth more, but because of inflation through the devaluation of the dollar.

Flat false. You are just proving your total ignorance of the relevant facts. The real (inflation-adjusted) value of a given plot of land is many times higher than it was 100 years ago, unlike the real value of commodities, which is almost always far less than 100 years ago. US$ wages have increased about 100-fold in the last 100 years. US land value has increased about 10,000-fold.

You need to look at purchasing power if you want to assign value to something or determine if something has gained value.

Right. You do.

 

[Roy L]

I find it hard to believe a person claiming to be libertarian would support a property Tax since it contradicts the basic concept of the belief of what Libertarianism is.

No, it only contradicts the propertarian or feudal "libertarian" belief that people's rights are determined by how much property they own:

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

libertarian (ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən)

— n
1. a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc

And movement. So please explain how Friday's freedom is preserved by Crusoe, who has "homesteaded" the island, pointing a musket at him, and telling him to either get to work or get back in the water.

Thought not.

2. philosophy Compare determinism a believer in the doctrine of free will

That's not the relevant sense.

The reason Property ownership is so important is because believing that you have the right to express yourself however you want has a couple of restrictions thus needing the necessity of out right ownership to be able to completely express yourself how you want.

Rightful property ownership of the fruits of one's labor is indeed crucial to liberty. But land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and therefore can never rightly have become anyone's property.

You will now say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that indisputable fact of objective physical reality.

The 2 Restrictions on Libertarianism are..

1. You dont have the right to hurt another person
2. Similar to the first,your freedom of expression is limited if it denys someone else there ability to freely express themselves.

Right. Owning land indisputably hurts other people and deprives them of their liberty to express themselves -- liberty they would indisputably otherwise have enjoyed, if the landowner did not forcibly remove it.

To be able to freely express and do what you want without hurting another person or denying them there freedom to do what they want , means you need a space that is yours only of which you may express yourself and not hinder another person,thus leads to the only solution which is land ownership.

Lie. Our ancestors for millions of years were free, and they never owned land. Owning land INHERENTLY hinders other people's free expression of their liberty. The only time owning land means anything at all is when it violates others' rights.

As soon as you introduce property tax you provide a means of denying someone the ability to do what they want.

Wrong. As soon as you introduce property in land you automatically deny people the ability to do what they want.

If they have paid off there property and want to live completely self sufficient they can't because property tax means they always need a source of income and can never truly be independent of society if they so chose.

That's why a universal individual exemption analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption is needed, and fully answers your objection.

Then you have the situation where elderly people who are too old to work can lose there home because there retirement payments arent enough to pay there property tax and they are then forced out of there house

Nope. They would have their individual exemptions, and they would be able to rent out bedroom space to roomers, or rent RV parking or garden space to neighbors, etc. to recoup any additional tax owning. That's the beauty of taxing land value: it's always automatically affordable. Just let a more productive user use the land, and collect the rent from them. And if in some bizarre, exceptional case none of the above was possibly, they could always just accept a tax lien on the property to be satisfied when the owner finally left for the retirement home, or died.

 

[Roy L]

The only way to live truly free is to own private property without property taxes.

Right: RIGHTFUL property in the fruits of one's labor.

One could live and farm on their land to provide for themselves and trade with others as they fit.

See the example of Crusoe and Friday. Is Crusoe not self-evidently violating Friday's rights by forcing him to either work for Crusoe's benefit or get back in the water? How are you going to prevent yourself from knowing that fact?

Communists like RoyL and EcoWarrier

Why even bother telling such stupid, transparent lies?

cannot accept that since their ideology is about forced participation and enslavement to this system.

Another idiotic lie. Slavery is compelled labor. It is landowning that compels people to labor for the benefit of landowners or die, not paying a tax on what you take from others.

I suspect EcoWarrier and RoyL are the same person.

I've seen such stupid claims before.

A single Communist

I've also seen that stupid claim before.

on a mission to convert others to his cause using this Liberty forum or a regular forum member having fun.

We are all about liberty and justice: I, Eco, Redbluepill, and a few others here who understand the economics and morality of land and taxation. You just don't see what we see, so you scream that it isn't there. But it is:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/catsup.htm

And like the cat in the picture, once you see it, you can't NOT see it.

 

[Steven Douglas]

No, there is also the equally important fact that a tax lien sale only recovers the debt owing. Any surplus is returned to the property owner...

Your "equally important fact" is a lie, a myth, not true in North Dakota and many other states, where if your house/land is foreclosed on, confiscated and sold at auction for failure to pay taxes, the tax lien sale is through a county deed, which is the equivalent of a quit claim deed. By statutory decree the chain of title is broken by the issuance of that deed (indeed a deed of theft), as the original owner forfeits/loses/is-robbed-of all of his interest in the property, including his equity. The tax deed is then sold (to anyone EXCEPT the original owner) to recover the unpaid taxes and other fees, with no provision for returning any surplus balance to the original owner, which also belongs to and is absorbed by the county, state or other political subdivision by virtue of the Tax Deed.

N.D.C.C. 57-28-08. Effect of failure to satisfy tax lien. (excerpt)
The failure of the owner, any mortgagee, or other lienholder to satisfy the tax lien before the date of foreclosure shall:
1. Pass any interest of the owner, mortgagee, or lienholder in the property to the county...

57-28-09. Tax deed to be issued.(excerpt)
After the date of foreclosure for property with an unsatisfied tax lien, the county auditor shall issue a tax deed to the county or...to that political subdivision. The tax deed passes the property in fee to the county, the state, or political subdivision, free from all encumbrances except (things which don't apply to the original owner).

So calling it "stealing" is pretty much calling it what it is - unless you're of the mindset that the state is incapable of theft.

 

[kahless]

I like Commie allegations. Terrific! When defeated cal them a Commie. Hilarious.

You do not believe in private property ownership. You and RoyL continue debate from a position of defending Communist polices. A common tactic of Communists to evangelize and gain power is to debate from a position denying their polices are Communist.

You buy title to the land which is a set of right. The state owns the land. That is how it is.

#1 plank of the Communist Manifesto: "Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. "

You do not chose if you want police or fire, etc. It is given by the community. You do not pay for the police by throwing money into buckets in Main St? The land you have, title is granted by the state.

You believe that a government monopoly can only provide services. You attack the very foundation of free enterprise and private property ownership.
Again debating from a position denying an individuals right to outright own private property.

The land gains in value which the landowner did not create.

Which should have nothing to do with government.

Appropriating that value is free-loading.

Your belief is this is free-loading from the people since property belongs to everyone. Again debating from a position from the plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto. "Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes."

I can't believe this. You want to chose which police force protects you?

In a free society I should have that right rather than be forced to pay for a service I do not want or need. This especially if I am homesteading out in the sticks in a very small community. I would rather pay a security firm or use a volunteer service like we do with EMS and Fire.

 

[Roy L]

I purchase property and own it outright,

Land cannot rightly be property; but in any case, you knew when you purchased it that the title was conditional on keeping the taxes current. Why pretend you did not? Just to lie for the sake of lying?

I maintain it

Land does not need maintenance, as it is by definition as nature made it.

and am not using any government services.

But you are depriving others of a location from which to access those services. See the example of the man taking the bread from the store and throwing it away. Do you really claim he does not have to pay for it? REALLY???!?

If I decide I want security (what you call police protection) then I chose whether or not to pay for that service. Fire and EMS is volunteer and they are funded by donations in which I contribute. I live in a private community where we maintain and service our roads.

Which nevertheless wouldn't do you much good if they did not connect to the public roads.

This is not free loading.

Yes, in fact, it is, as proved by the fact that "your" land would be worth much less if not for the surrounding community/society and its government-provided services and infrastructure.

I live in a town where the city holds a monopoly on services to property owners. Property owners are forced to pay to the government monopoly for these services through property taxes. In this scenario if I refuse then maybe you have an argument that it is free loading. However the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly in providing services to land owners.

You do not understand what government is: the sovereign authority over a certain area of land.

Property owners should be able to chose whom provides such services.

Silliness (and laughable grammar: "whom" is the objective case). Choosing who provides services only makes sense when competition is meaningful and appropriate.

If you do not believe all taxation is theft then the tax burden for services should be distributed evenly to all citizens since all are using these services rather then a heavy property tax burden on a limited number of property owners.

Pure idiocy. The notion that the government gives as much benefit to the homeless as to landowners is so outrageously false and dishonest that it cannot be ascribed to innocent error. It is deliberate lying.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France

See the example of free food from government, available only at a privately owned location.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Land cannot rightly be property;

Land can be property. Your operative slippery word is "rightly" - your normative - your "should", one that is based on a moral tenet of your tax religion, or rationale for LVT.

...but in any case, you knew when you purchased it that the title was conditional on keeping the taxes current.

Which brings us to our normative: it is this way now, but "should not" be this way in our opinion. See how that works, Roy? We both want the status quo to change -- you in the direction of denying landownership without condition to free and natural persons, and us in the exact opposite direction.

You do not understand what government is: the sovereign authority over a certain area of land.

You're the one who lacks understanding and wisdom here, as you don't understand the origin of that so-called sovereignty - the origin of its meaning and purpose.

From the Constitution of the State of North Dakota:

We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution. (which constitution then goes onto establish that State)

ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property (which includes land in North Dakota) and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;
and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require.

The notion that the government gives as much benefit to the homeless as to landowners is so outrageously false and dishonest that it cannot be ascribed to innocent error. It is deliberate lying.

There is nothing inherent in a Land Value Tax that changes that, since in itself it is nothing more than an ad valorem tax levied on the value of unimproved land, and a tax collection, not spending, mechanism. To imply otherwise is deliberately deceitful.

 

[osan]

A tax on the land values is not a tax, it is reclaiming community created wealth. Not capturing this community created wealth leaves someone to free-load.

Loath as I am to feed the troll, regarding the initial statement, I challenge you to substantiate it. I challenge you to provide a formal presentation and proof of its validity and truth. Care to belly up?

As to the second part, you provide no definitions, leaving the sentence in a state of essential meaninglessness.

No one can live truly be independent of society,

First of all, that is nonsense. Granted, living completely independently is very tough, but it is indeed possible. There are abundant examples of this throughout human history. You, therefore, fail.

Those who want to live isolated within a community and pay nothing for what they receive are free-loaders.

And your abilities in reasoning leave everything to be desired. Your contention presupposes some sort of a duty to the "community" that you have failed to explicitly announce and demonstrate. Further down the rabbit hole of presupposition is the notion of "community" as an entity in and of itself that possesses innate qualities above and beyond those of the individuals that make it up. One of the tacit presuppositions that skulks in the shadows of all of this is the vague implication that a "community" somehow possesses rights and that those rights are by some unpublished means superior to those of said individuals. I will once again challenge you to put up or shut up on these unsubstantiated presumptions. "Community" is nothing more than a concept. A group of humans living in some proximity to one another may comport themselves in ways consistent with the concept or they may not. If people are FREE, they are free to partake of community and to do so in the manner and degree THEY choose. To suggest that a concept (community) that exists NOWHERE in space and time, save within the confines of the skulls of individuals, somehow possesses rights, which is to say claims of title, to the lives and products of living, tangible human beings will prove quite the task for you to demonstrate. I wholeheartedly challenge and encourage you to do this. If what you assert is in fact true, you should have no troubles demonstrating this in a manner that will refract the wilting force of my method of analytical demolition.

So you have a laundry list here:

1. Demonstrate the material reality of "community" in the real world that is more than simply the presence of a conceptual mental construct within peoples' heads.

2. Demonstrate that such an extant entity as "community" possesses fundamental and inalienable rights including a tract on whence they source.

3. Demonstrate that such community rights are superior to to those of the individuals making up the community.

4. Based on such demonstrations of points 1-3 above, demonstrate how the community holds title to the lives, properties, and products of its constituent members.

5. How does the community make its decisions regarding the actions it exercises over the rights of the individual members, particularly where there is an absence of unanimity in a given instance?

6. Does not the body of decision makers constitute a community within the community? If so, does that sub-community hold rights above and beyond those of the larger set? If so. whence do those superior rights issue and why should we believe them valid?

​

I could go on a bit further, but will stop here mainly because I am 99.9%(bar) certain you will never get past point 1. Point 2 will absolutely nail the lid shut on your argument's coffin and I need not give the rest the merest thought. But I nevertheless fully encourage you to give it your best shot. If you fail to take up the challenge I will consider it a default capitulation and concession that everything you have propounded here is false and thereby unsupportable with fact, reason, and truth.

I ignore the rest of your sad and silly diatribe as it doesn't even rate as good as what I would expect from a ill-informed sixth-grader.

The gauntlet is on the table. The only question remaining is whether you have the nerve.