North Dakota to vote on ending property tax

[Roy L]

Your "equally important fact" is a lie,

LOL! Says the guy who has been caught in more lies than Carter has pills...

a myth, not true in North Dakota and many other states,

Even if it is not true in ND (and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say) or some other state (and just which "many other" states have the same system?), it is certainly true generally, so to call it a lie or myth merely confirms your grotesque and invariable dishonesty.

And in any case, even if that is the law in ND (which does surprise me), then that was a condition of the original issuance of the title deed, like the payments needed to keep a car you bought on credit, not a "theft" arbitrarily imposed later.

By statutory decree the chain of title is broken by the issuance of that deed (indeed a deed of theft),

Nonsense, as proved above.

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.

Garbage. The owner knew -- or should have known -- the conditions under which the title was issued in the first place, and had years in which to satisfy her debt by selling the house and moving into accommodation better suited to her needs and means. Calling it "stealing" is therefore still a lie.

 

[Steven Douglas]

::: wiggle-nonsense snipped :::

...and just which "many other" states have the same system?

More than half:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington.

The owner knew -- or should have known -- the conditions under which the title was issued in the first place, and had years in which to satisfy her debt by selling the house and moving into accommodation better suited to her needs and means. Calling it "stealing" is therefore still a lie.

By that same logic, the current system that does not "reclaim community created wealth" (via LVT) does not constitute a "theft" of ground rents on the parts of landowners, so you can stop making that claim.

 

[Roy L]

You do not believe in private property ownership.

You are lying.

You and RoyL continue debate from a position of defending Communist polices.

Lie.

A common tactic of Communists to evangelize and gain power is to debate from a position denying their polices are Communist.

LOL! So anything anyone says is Communist, unless they say it is Communist...?

ROTFL!

#1 plank of the Communist Manifesto: "Abolition of private property

Wrong. It says private property IN LAND.

and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. "

Yes, well, communists also think 1+1=2. Does that mean it's false?

Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto calls for elimination of child factory labor. Are you saying children should work in factories? It also calls for free public education. Are you saying there should be no free public education?

The Communist Manifesto would never have been so successful if all the planks were wrong.

You believe that a government monopoly can only provide services.

No, we merely observe that some services are natural public monopolies, as the private market can't invest efficiently in them.

You attack the very foundation of free enterprise and private property ownership.

False. We are trying to restore free enterprise and valid private property ownership from the unjust and liberty-destroying system of landowner privilege.

Again debating from a position denying an individuals right to outright own private property.

Lie. We have stated repeatedly that we fully support private property in products of labor and indeed are unalterably opposed to their taxation either as income or sales.

Which should have nothing to do with government.

They cannot be separated from government. It is impossible, as the Henry George Theorem proves.

Your belief is this is free-loading from the people since property belongs to everyone.

No, because LAND belongs to NO one.

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."

It says "private property in land," not "private property" -- but the Communist Manifesto does state elsewhere that communism is abolition of private property simpliciter, which we have consistently opposed.

In a free society I should have that right rather than be forced to pay for a service I do not want or need.

<sigh> Should the guy who takes bread he does not want or need from the supermarket and throws it in the river not have to pay for it?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

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.

In fact, with your individual exemption, you would be paying no LVT in any case.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Seems to boil down to one thing. Anything which disagrees with RoyL is a lie. Even if it is really a fact.

 

[Roy L]

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?

Silliness. Formal proof is for math and formal logic.

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

Garbage. People communicate just fine without redefining everything with every sentence. Honest people, that is...

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.

An individual past childhood may be able to survive alone, but he still needed help to get to that point. And even if an individual can survive alone, humanity cannot exist without society.

You, therefore, FAIL. You have FAILED. You will continue to FAIL. You are a FAILURE.

Your contention presupposes some sort of a duty to the "community" that you have failed to explicitly announce and demonstrate.

We have demonstrated conclusively that the landowner forcibly deprives others of their liberty, and therefore owes them just compensation. We don't have to demonstrate it anew in every post.

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.

That concept is self-evident in human existence. Language, for example, is a quality of community and would be impossible without community. You know this. You just have to refuse to know it.

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.

No such assumption is made. The assumption, which is well demonstrated by all history, is that the rights of individuals can neither exist nor be secured and reconciled other than through communal commitment to doing so, usually via government.

I will once again challenge you to put up or shut up on these unsubstantiated presumptions.

<yawn>

"Community" is nothing more than a concept.

Such claims are nothing more than idiocy, as proved, repeat, PROVED above. Language and everything that depends on language cannot exist as a mere quality of individuals.

A group of humans living in some proximity to one another may comport themselves in ways consistent with the concept or they may not.

When have they not?

If people are FREE, they are free to partake of community and to do so in the manner and degree THEY choose.

Wrong. If people are free, then others are not free to violate their rights to liberty without making just compensation just because those others might "choose" not to "partake of" community in that "manner and degree."

To suggest that a concept (community) that exists NOWHERE in space and time, save within the confines of the skulls of individuals,

Stupid garbage, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.

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.

Which might be because that is a stupid strawman fallacy you just made up.

I wholeheartedly challenge and encourage you to do this.

ROTFL! I challenge and encourage you to spend a week picking fly $#!+ out of pepper. It would be about as productive.

If what you assert is in fact true,

It's not what we assert. It's nothing but a stupid strawman fallacy you just made up.

you should have no troubles demonstrating this in a manner that will refract the wilting force of my method of analytical demolition.

BWAHAHAHHAAAAAAHHAHAHHHAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

You are making a prize fool of yourself, dumpling. Trust me on this one. I hold a degree in philosophy, with honors, from an internationally respected university. You, all too obviously, have never had a course in philosophy or logic at any level, and have probably never even held a logic textbook in your hand.

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.

Done.

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

No need: strawman fallacy.

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

The community is the only way those individuals' rights are going to be secured and reconciled. There is no other way.

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.

Absurd strawman fallacy.

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?

Finally a question that isn't stupid or dishonest. That's what democratic institutions are for.

6. Does not the body of decision makers constitute a community within the community?

Equivocation fallacy.

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?

Those responsible for securing and reconciling the individual rights of all have authority and (ideally commensurate) responsibility, not additional rights.

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.

Wrong again.

Point 2 will absolutely nail the lid shut on your argument's coffin and I need not give the rest the merest thought.

You're just begging to be demolished and humiliated. And I don't mind doing it.

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.

You wouldn't know fact, reason, truth, or especially logic if they bit you on the goolies.

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.

No, you ignore it because you can't refute or, more likely, even understand it.

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

<WHACK!!>

And I really advise you to learn something from the drubbing I just gave you before you presume to dispute with me again.

 

[EcoWarrier]

You do not believe in private property ownership.

I do. I do not believe that common wealth is appropriated by private individuals or organizations. I also do not believe that private wealth is stolen by the state - it is right now.

You and RoyL continue debate from a position of defending Communist polices.

You would not know what a Communist policy is as long as you have hole in your rear end.

< snip the rest >

 

[Steven Douglas]

<sigh> Should the guy who takes bread he does not want or need from the supermarket and throws it in the river not have to pay for it?

<long mock sigh>

Earth to dishonest question-beggar(sic) : your analogue with regard to the state being a "rental supermarket" for land is blithering question begging on your part, as the very issue being discussed, in a normative sense for all concerned, is whether or not the state should even be such a monopoly supermarket for land-for-land-rents in the first place. Your question is yet another disingenuous attempt to gloss over the original question at hand, as if it had indeed been settled, from a premise that implies that a) the state is already such a supermarket, as it b) reclaims something you believe belongs to an entity called "the community".

On the latter point, why didn't you give an actual meaningful response to osan's well written thoughts and subsequent challenge on precisely that subject:

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?

​

EDIT: Just read your turing-machine non-response, full of dismissive ROTFL and BWAHAHA, denouncements, argument by ridicule and other nonsense you hope will pass for an argument. Epic fail, as usual.

 

[Roy L]

More than half:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington.

Source?

If true, that would certainly explain a lot of the public resentment of property taxes. I will stipulate that the forfeiture of ownership rights to improvements under property tax seizures in states that use that method is, in fact if not in law, stealing. It's certainly not consistent with common law property rights.

But I still haven't seen a documented case of a poor old widow being put out into the street.

By that same logic, the current system that does not "reclaim community created wealth" (via LVT) does not constitute a "theft" of ground rents on the parts of landowners, so you can stop making that claim.

True, it's not legally theft any more than the bandit in the pass is legally stealing once he gets the toll license or land title. Nevertheless, that is what he is in fact doing, as already proved.

 

[Roy L]

Seems to boil down to one thing. Anything which disagrees with RoyL is a lie. Even if it is really a fact.

Name one example where I called a fact a lie. One.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Source?

The internet, my own research and data, all performed with easy searches, right from the horses' official mouths. I already showed you one, and cited the source. I'm not going carry your water for you, as it's far easier for you to falsify my assertion with a random sampling of your own, showing me a single source that is not what I claimed it was.

If true, that would certainly explain a lot of the public resentment of property taxes. I will stipulate that the forfeiture of ownership rights to improvements under property tax seizures in states that use that method is, in fact if not in law, stealing. It's certainly not consistent with common law property rights.

I agree - we've drifted a long way from common law property rights, and the erosion of those rights continues. Incidentally, it was only a few years ago that ND lowered the deadline for issuing tax deeds for delinquent property taxes from five years to three years. Two ND legislators I know and spoke with said that one of their fellow legislators is floating around the idea of a bill that would lower that to one year.

By that same logic, the current system that does not "reclaim community created wealth" (via LVT) does not constitute a "theft" of ground rents on the parts of landowners, so you can stop making that claim.

True, it's not legally theft any more than the bandit in the pass is legally stealing once he gets the toll license or land title. Nevertheless, that is what he is in fact doing, as already proved.

And that goes to the heart of moral versus legal. It was legal to own people as property at one time. The fact that moral theft of the liberty and labor of real people was not unlawful or illegal, and the fact that it was sanctioned by legislatures and enforceable by courts, did not take away from the fact that it was theft by all other reckoning.

So when someone uses the word STEALING in a political normative sense, it should be obvious to anyone that they are not referring to it in a legal, but rather what a moral sense, as they view it. In other words, what "ought" to be considered stealing as a matter of legislation. Likewise, you honestly feel, and argue in earnest, that landownership represents a wrongful deprivation to others, and that a rightful claim of land rents exist that is owed to "the community", or taxing jurisdiction. Morally you consider the lack of such recovery - the ground rents, or economic advantages enjoyed by landowners - THEFT. I disagree completely, but I can at least acknowledge that you are arguing in earnest, just as I can obviously see that you are referring to it in a moral sense that you would like codified in the legal sense. So it would be disingenuous and erroneous of me to say that you "are lying" based on me clinging to legal definitions only.

Name one example where I called a fact a lie. One.

Oooh, slippery, given that a fact is not, by definition, a lie.

The logical assumption is that anything you called a lie was truly a lie, and not a fact. I'll give you one glaring example of where that was not the case without looking anything up: Every time you claimed that someone was lying about "the fact" that they knew something. In other words, every time you claimed omniscience about other people's knowledge, motives or intentions, and especially when you claim that people are not arguing in earnest, but merely exercising a "refusal to know indisputable facts of objective reality" (as you see them of course, being the lone arbiter of what is fact, what is objective, and what is indisputable).

It often comes out as, "You are lying. You know this. Of course you do.", when the FACT (about what I knew, which only I could know for sure, given that you are NOT OMNISCIENT) was otherwise.

 

[Roy L]

The internet, my own research and data, all performed with easy searches, right from the horses' official mouths.

I do not believe you.

I already showed you one, and cited the source. I'm not going carry your water for you,

IOW, you can't support your claim. Thought not.

as it's far easier for you to falsify my assertion with a random sampling of your own, showing me a single source that is not what I claimed it was.

You're right: it WAS easy. The first one I looked at was Alaska:

“If the proceeds of the sale of tax-foreclosed property exceed the total of unpaid and delinquent taxes, penalty, interest, and costs, the municipality shall provide the former owner of the property written notice advising of the amount of the excess and the manner in which a claim for the balance of the proceeds may be submitted. Notice is sufficient under this subsection if mailed to the former record owner at the last address of record of the former record owner.” Title 29 Alaska Statutes Chapter 45 Section 480.

You are destroyed.

Second one, California:

"Any proceeds remaining are distributed to the person with title of record prior to the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser, provided the person has filed a claim"
CA Revenue and Tax Code Par 8517.

Do we really need to go through the rest? Now I wonder if you are even right about the distribution of excess proceeds in ND.

Remainder of stupid, dishonest garbage snipped.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You're right: it WAS easy. The first one I looked at was Alaska:

“If the proceeds of the sale of tax-foreclosed property exceed the total of unpaid and delinquent taxes, penalty, interest, and costs, the municipality shall provide the former owner of the property written notice advising of the amount of the excess and the manner in which a claim for the balance of the proceeds may be submitted. Notice is sufficient under this subsection if mailed to the former record owner at the last address of record of the former record owner.” Title 29 Alaska Statutes Chapter 45 Section 480.

You are destroyed.

Second one, California:

"Any proceeds remaining are distributed to the person with title of record prior to the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser, provided the person has filed a claim"
CA Revenue and Tax Code Par 8517.

Do we really need to go through the rest? Now I wonder if you are even right about the distribution of excess proceeds in ND.

Remainder of stupid, dishonest garbage snipped.

Hey, Goofy Logic, the question I answered was which states issued Tax Deeds like North Dakota, not that all states were identical in their handling of them -- and both your examples proved that out. And ALL of those states behave similarly in one respect, which goes to the heart of the ramifications of a tax deed. It means the property is sold with the sole purpose and intent of recovering the value of delinquent taxes plus penalties, interests, court costs and other fees. Period. Out of those states or other political subdivision that do provide A MECHANISM (as in, legal hoops to jump through, it's never automatic) for any surplus return back to the owner, NOT ONE OF THE STATES or political subdivisions behaves as a realtor in trying to get fair market value for the property. The ONLY interest that is looked after is that of the state.

From a former owner's perspective there is not that much difference between a state that collects what was owing and simply steals the balance of equity, and a state that collects what was owed in a way that makes no effort to protect the balance of the equity at all, and simply allows that to be a windfall to the new owner who steals the balance. After which the state washes its hands.

As for your "I don't believe you", you must know by now that I don't put much stock in anything you believe or don't believe. I see you as having swallowed a giant, nasty hairball full of convolutions, distortions, delusions and lies, I really don't give a shit that you see it as "mirror time", as the Japanese say, or "Pot/kettle", or "I'm rubber and you're glue", or "Takes one to know one", or anything else a child would say as a deflection in retort.

 

[Roy L]

Hey, Goofy Logic, the question I answered was which states issued Tax Deeds like North Dakota, not that all states were identical in their handling of them -- and both your examples proved that out.

No, you are lying, Steven. LYING. The question (post #301) was:

"(and just which "many other" states have the same system?),"

Not "which states issue tax deeds."

Which states have the SAME SYSTEM.

And your answer was a flat-out lie.

As usual.

In fact, it now appears that even ND may return excess proceeds to the former owner.

And ALL of those states behave similarly in one respect, which goes to the heart of the ramifications of a tax deed.

Lie. Issuance of a tax deed does NOT go to the heart of the ramifications. If they return excess proceeds to the former owner, the "stealing" claim immediately goes right back to being a lie.

And I think you know that.

It means the property is sold with the sole purpose and intent of recovering the value of delinquent taxes plus penalties, interests, court costs and other fees. Period. Out of those states or other political subdivision that do provide A MECHANISM (as in, legal hoops to jump through, it's never automatic)

Of course it's not automatic. People who have their homes seized for back property taxes almost always owe even more money elsewhere, in addition to the back taxes. The state gives those other claimants a chance to get their money before the deadbeat takes off with it.

for any surplus return back to the owner, NOT ONE OF THE STATES or political subdivisions behaves as a realtor in trying to get fair market value for the property.

The state is not a realtor. Why would it behave as a realtor?

The ONLY interest that is looked after is that of the state.

So you admit that you flat-out lied. Good.

From a former owner's perspective there is not that much difference between a state that collects what was owing and simply steals the balance of equity,

Which I now doubt any state does.

and a state that collects what was owed in a way that makes no effort to protect the balance of the equity at all, and simply allows that to be a windfall to the new owner who steals the balance.

Yet another "stealing" lie...? Tsk, tsk.

As for your "I don't believe you", you must know by now that I don't put much stock in anything you believe or don't believe.

But I was obviously right not to believe you.

You are so done.

 

[Steven Douglas]

And I think you know that.

You think I do, huh? Well, you're softening at any rate.

Now onward, as we meddling kids and our mangy old dog continue to do the work of truth, justice and liberty for all, as we unmask villains and save ordinary hardworking people from the menacing LVT tentacles reaching out to their homes.

 

[kahless]

<sigh> Should the guy who takes bread he does not want or need from the supermarket and throws it in the river not have to pay for it?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

What the hell is that, LOL. Why would I buy property I do not want and then not pay for it. You are not making any sense.

In fact, with your individual exemption, you would be paying no LVT in any case.

No. Maybe for you depending on your income, the property tax amount and based on the fact that your belief system is all about forced labor in the governments economic system so they could give you back that crumb.

In many areas the individual exemption is not enough. I am going to use my community as an example and put aside those that will not have an income since they chose not to participate in your forced system, homesteaders that wish to live off the land and trade with others and the sick.

In my community property tax for the smallest homes are between 8k to 12k (high ranches 12k to 18k) a year and includes school tax which everyone must pay regardless whether you have children or are 80 years old. The individual exemption would not be enough. (12 years ago the taxes averaged around $1500 - $3000).

So perhaps our perspectives are different since it seems you cannot fathom this reality where you live. I know the rates vary from state to state, county to county and some areas offer exemptions for the elderly. Where I live we do not have that option and your belief system has essentially won the battle here and these rates are the end result.

My county here in NY is heavily dominated by your kind. The Communist party and Socialist Workers party are typically on the ballot with the same candidates as the Democrat party. The Republican party is essentially a carbon copy of the Democrat party.

Despite the amounts they are charging for property tax, my county is almost in a state of bankruptcy since it has grown government so large and providing ridiculous pensions and salaries. For example Teachers and Police salaries average well over 150k per year with school superintendents total compensation average 300k per year. Even the guy that mows the lawn for our town building makes 98k per year.

Nothing goes on here that warrants police needing a salary of over 150k a year. Government workers retire at 55 and the property tax owner is on the hook for their pensions for life. Essentially we all are slaves to the government employees and their pensions for life through property taxation. That is everyone, since the landlords are forced to raise the rent to pay the higher property tax amount.

Meanwhile when a non-government worker retires they can lose their home if they cannot cough up the 8k-12k per year to support these ridiculous salaries and pensions.

Be careful what you wish for RoyL, you might just get it like I have here. That is unless you are reaping the benefits of enslaving us through property taxes as a government employee.

 

[Roy L]

What the hell is that, LOL. Why would I buy property I do not want and then not pay for it.

Because you're a greedy taker?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

No.

Yes. You are just flat-out lying, just as all anti-LVT smuts inevitably do.

Maybe for you depending on your income,

LVT is not related to income, and replaces income tax. You are bloviating.

the property tax amount and based on the fact that your belief system is all about forced labor in the governments economic system so they could give you back that crumb.

Lie. My system is the one that DOESN'T force anyone to labor, but DOES ensure they have access to opportunities to labor.

In many areas the individual exemption is not enough.

It is anywhere off in the boonies where you aren't getting the benefit of government services and infrastructure, which is what YOU claimed (i.e., lied) you wanted to do.

I am going to use my community as an example and put aside those that will not have an income since they chose not to participate in your forced system, homesteaders that wish to live off the land and trade with others and the sick.

Huh?

In my community property tax for the smallest homes are between 8k to 12k (high ranches 12k to 18k) a year

No, they aren't.

and includes school tax which everyone must pay regardless whether you have children or are 80 years old. The individual exemption would not be enough.

Maybe not, because in your community landowners pocket massive welfare subsidy giveaways courtesy of government services and infrastructure. That's what land value IS.

Anyway, your community is not somewhere off in the boonies where government services don't give economic advantages to landowners. I didn't say the exemption was enough to hold a large parcel of valuable land in an urban area. I said it was enough to hold a modest parcel -- enough to live on -- out where you aren't depriving others of access to advantageous services and infrastructure government provides.

Your greed for unearned wealth, and your dishonesty in rationalizing it, are sickening.

(12 years ago the taxes averaged around $1500 - $3000).

I repeat: document your claim, or admit you are lying. Failure to do the former will constitute doing the latter.

And I do not believe you will be doing the former.

So perhaps our perspectives are different since it seems you cannot fathom this reality where you live.

I am very confident it is not the reality where YOU live.

Where I live we do not have that option and your belief system has essentially won the battle here

Garbage. You can't even accurately describe my belief system. You have to lie about it.

and these rates are the end result.

If they actually existed, which they don't.

My county here in NY is heavily dominated by your kind.

There is no one like me in your county, dumpling.

The Communist party and Socialist Workers party are typically on the ballot with the same candidates as the Democrat party.

Provide the documentation, or admit you are lying.

The Republican party is essentially a carbon copy of the Democrat party.

Or vice versa. But that's true anywhere.

Despite the amounts they are charging for property tax, my county is almost in a state of bankruptcy since it has grown government so large and providing ridiculous pensions and salaries. For example Teachers and Police salaries average well over 150k per year with school superintendents total compensation average 300k per year. Even the guy that mows the lawn for our town building makes 98k per year.

Document your claims or admit you are lying.

Nothing goes on here that warrants police needing a salary of over 150k a year. Government workers retire at 55 and the property tax owner is on the hook for their pensions for life.

Documentation.

Essentially we all are slaves to the government employees and their pensions for life through property taxation. That is everyone, since the landlords are forced to raise the rent to pay the higher property tax amount.

Most of the property tax cannot be passed on to renters. Try again.

Meanwhile when a non-government worker retires they can lose their home if they cannot cough up the 8k-12k per year to support these ridiculous salaries and pensions.

Yet people don't seem to be moving out to avoid these horrendous costs. I wonder why...

Be careful what you wish for RoyL, you might just get it like I have here.

I have no idea what you have there, as it is certainly not what you have described.

That is unless you are reaping the benefits of enslaving us through property taxes as a government employee.

I'm not a government employee.

I wonder if you have made a single true statement in this thread to date.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

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.

Don't forget the JohnLVT handle

 

[Roy L]

Don't forget the JohnLVT handle

Rule of thumb: If you can't tell the difference between two posters, you are no more intelligent than the less intelligent of the two.

 

[EcoWarrier]

My county here in NY is heavily dominated by your kind. The Communist party and Socialist Workers party

I think people are deliberately spiraling this thread into farce. Hilarious as they view the world though it is.

They have no case in arguments and when demolished the stock answers of "Commie", "pinko Commie" "Red under the bed", etc all come. They take it to the personal level clearly indicating they have no argument. What is hilarious in their warped views and accusations of "commie", in that Geoism is based on an unrigged free-market and rolling back the state. Geoism is leaving people alone and not burdening them with taxes having only one tax. It set them free.

They do not have the intelligence to see another's view and analyze it, merely reciting the "political" indoctrination set into their minds. They do not have the intelligence to see that Geoism is not a political movement, it is an economic system that fits into any political ism. This puts a wrench into the machinery of their pre-programed minds.

They could learn a lot by the Geoist viewpoint and when they understand it they would see it is what they want. It sets you free. It give them all they want. It eliminates free-loaders and puts wealth into the hands on the productive.. It is a shame their minds are not receptive of such such simple, brilliant ideas. Ideas that have proven to work in practice.

 

[EcoWarrier]

In my community property tax for the smallest homes are between 8k to 12k (high ranches 12k to 18k) a year and includes school tax which everyone must pay regardless whether you have children or are 80 years old. The individual exemption would not be enough. (12 years ago the taxes averaged around $1500 - $3000).

LVT is not the same as the current property taxes. It is quite different. LVT is an annual levy on all land, used or not used - a levy on the value of the land. The higher the "land" value the more you pay. You can move to an internal tax haven by moving to an area with lower land values.

The property taxes you are on about are a tax on "houses", CAPITAL. It takes into account the price of the whole package of house and land. Vacant plots of land are not included. Masses of other land is not included - it could horded and owned by an idle land speculating man laying on the beach in Florida all day who gets rich in his sleep as the values rise. The property tax predominantly falls onto the house occupier. The occupier may not own the land.

Taxing the bricks on the land (CAPITAL) is rather dumb. As dumb as taxing your washing machine each year.

The Property tax you are castigating falls mainly onto one section which is wrong an taxes mainly the wrong thing, CAPITAL, not LAND. Tax ALL land an only by the value and see the economy take off.

Geoist do not like the way the current "property taxes" are structured. A part of the land is taxed which is good, but the tax should 100% on the land, and only its value, ehich can move up or down, so an auto tax. Geoists do not like taxing your house.

Definition:

• Property = the CAPITAL on the land (bricks and wood)
• LAND is not property. You do not own it, you occupy it. You have title, a set of rights. The state owns the LAND.