Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on October 10, 2010, 05:41:49 am
-
This is something i have a hard time digesting. Property taxes (as in land). Maybe different for people who live in buroughs. But, really? What's the point in slapping down say like $22,000 to buy some property that you need to pay rent on in the end? And you miss a payment for a while in property taxes, the land can be taken away. What was the point of slapping down $22,000 in the first place? Granted paying property taxes is much cheaper than renting. It's still rent in the end no matter what with needing to pay taxes on property you own.
In this case it's not owning, it's just cheaper than living in an apartment. What up with this so called american right to be able to own land and how it has changed? My country's becoming more communistic by the minute.
-
welcome to the tea party.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Notice the US is nowhere near the top of the list.
I see no problem. In fact I prefer that the street lights work, the roads don't look like total crap, etc. On a family trip we crossed state lines from our home into another state with lesser tax revenue, and you could literally see a demarcation along the state line because of how crappy the highway was on the other side.
-
Indeed. It's not like the money taxed is simply gone. It goes into civil services and upkeep. At most, there's only about 30-40% outright gone due to red tape, general bureaucratic fees, and corruption.
Paying tax sucks, but I find it easier to swallow when I know the money I'm sacrificing is helping those around me.[/ubersmug]
-
This is something i have a hard time digesting. Property taxes (as in land). Maybe different for people who live in buroughs. But, really? What's the point in slapping down say like $22,000 to buy some property that you need to pay rent on in the end? And you miss a payment for a while in property taxes, the land can be taken away. What was the point of slapping down $22,000 in the first place? Granted paying property taxes is much cheaper than renting. It's still rent in the end no matter what with needing to pay taxes on property you own.
In this case it's not owning, it's just cheaper than living in an apartment. What up with this so called american right to be able to own land and how it has changed? My country's becoming more communistic by the minute.
Property taxes existed since before the american revolution and have existed throughout its history, how is the country becoming more communist?
-
It's rather the need to own a house that's the problem I think.
-
Your property taxes finance the upkeep of infrastructure, including roads, water lines, and sewer systems, local community programs (including garbage and recycling), local policing and fire department, and various other initiatives that benefit you directly.
Now, unless you'd rather pay for those services directly (enjoy the potholes and no working water/sewer service!) I'd suggest you just learn to live with them. Property taxes, along with sales taxes, are one of their fairest tax systems because they bill the consumer of their services directly for them.
And on the notion of your country becoming more "communistic" (which taxes have nothing to do with, FYI, learn about what communism actually is before you make silly assertions), you might be interested to know that 92-odd percent of Americans favor a social model closer to that of Sweden than what they have in the United States. (http://http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Americans+want+fairer+society/3642817/story.html)
Those I suppose if you really don't like it you can always move to Afghanistan - apparently the officials there can be bribed to do almost anything. Though the bribes probably cost more than your property taxes anyway.
-
Your property taxes finance the upkeep of infrastructure, including roads, water lines, and sewer systems, local community programs (including garbage and recycling), local policing and fire department, and various other initiatives that benefit you directly.
Now, unless you'd rather pay for those services directly (enjoy the potholes and no working water/sewer service!) I'd suggest you just learn to live with them. Property taxes, along with sales taxes, are one of their fairest tax systems because they bill the consumer of their services directly for them.
that would make sense, except you have to pay for garbage, sewage, water, gas, electricity, etc on a monthly basis on top of your property tax. those bills should cover their respective infrastructure. i can understand police fire and local road systems (shouldn't car taxes cover those), but you still have to pay property taxes in areas where you dont have anything. people i know in the alaskan bush get taxed big time, with no infrastructure at all for those taxes to pay for. i kinda think you should get what you pay for. if theres anything i dont like about the tax system, its the 50 million different kinds of taxes you end up paying. i very much doubt anyone can list all the taxes you could end up paying in america, theres that many of them. still the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. this is why i think the world needs to be nuked (of course then everyone would need to pay nuke tax).
-
Now, unless you'd rather pay for those services directly
Funny you should mention that... (http://seerpress.com/fire-department-lets-house-burn-down-over-unpaid-dues/9139/)
My country's becoming more communistic by the minute.
plzlrn2communist
ur doin it wrong
At first I thought you were just giving us our daily serving of yummy yummy poeslaw, but I srsly think you don't know what communism is.
-
S-99 has made a career of displaying his ignorance on the forum.
-
Where I live, land taxes help the school system buy new books to give my grandchildren an education. Also pays for there transportation to and from school. Yes its an old system, but it works. :)
-
And you just hit my big beef with property taxes. Schools. I choose not to have kids so why should I have to pay for schools while a majority of the people that have kids in the school district where I live don't pay a penny in property tax because they are in low income housing?
I don't think anyone should have the right to vote on property taxes unless they pay them or pay rent to someone that does.
-
And you just hit my big beef with property taxes. Schools. I choose not to have kids so why should I have to pay for schools while a majority of the people that have kids in the school district where I live don't pay a penny in property tax because they are in low income housing?
Interesting point.. But at some point in time the grand-kids will be out of school and i`ll be in the same situation as you, i`ll still pay my taxes reguardless of that fact. Its my pact in life.
-
So, you want schools to have even less funding than they do now?
-
No I want the people that have kids to pay for it not me. Why should you get a tax break for having kids? That should be the other way around then use that money for schools. You would also cut down on the population while your at it. None of these "baby poppers" living off the government. When it costs you an extra 4 grand a year per kid in taxes that's a big incentive not to have them.
-
that would make sense, except you have to pay for garbage, sewage, water, gas, electricity, etc on a monthly basis on top of your property tax. those bills should cover their respective infrastructure. i can understand police fire and local road systems (shouldn't car taxes cover those), but you still have to pay property taxes in areas where you dont have anything. people i know in the alaskan bush get taxed big time, with no infrastructure at all for those taxes to pay for. i kinda think you should get what you pay for. if theres anything i dont like about the tax system, its the 50 million different kinds of taxes you end up paying. i very much doubt anyone can list all the taxes you could end up paying in america, theres that many of them. still the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. this is why i think the world needs to be nuked (of course then everyone would need to pay nuke tax).
The bills you pay are for service, not for infrastructure. Look at it this way - do you think people prefer having lower utilities bills and property taxes that pay for the utilities infrastructure over paying much larger individual utility bills every month?
Property taxes only cover infrastructure in the municipality OR county OR district that you reside in. So people who own property are essentially paying for upkeep on the systems that allow them to live there - be it the roads, the water lines, the sewer lines, the fire service, the police service (which, in areas where there is no municipal police, will pay for contracts with State/outside police).
Ultimately, property taxes are a way for municipalities to cover their costs. As municipalities already function with enormous assistance from higher levels of government, I think a direct method of income collection is in their best interest. I'd love to see all taxes reduced to value-added tax schemes because it is directly applied based on consumption (as opposed to income taxes, that hit you regardless of your consumption levels), but property taxes are a necessary evil. On the plus side, they are proportional - the higher the assessed value of your property, the higher the taxes - so the premise is that each household pays according to their ability to do so (afford a more expensive home, pay more property taxes). That can be a little problematic when the geniuses in the financial sector let people buy homes well beyond their financial reach, though *cough cough*.
-
Your taxes are based on the size of your property, and what you have on said property. That said if you think you pay to much land tax, get a smaller lot of land, and a small house or trailer, thus reducing your taxes.
-
No I want the people that have kids to pay for it not me. Why should you get a tax break for having kids? That should be the other way around then use that money for schools. You would also cut down on the population while your at it. None of these "baby poppers" living off the government. When it costs you an extra 4 grand a year per kid in taxes that's a big incentive not to have them.
Maybe you missed the news, but the general population in North America has birth rates that are already starting to rapidly approach below-replacement levels. You really want to reduce that further? *points at Europe* If you haven't noticed the dire predictions, more than a fewer European countries are nervously looking at birth rates already (mostly because the Muslim population is on course to exceed the non-Muslim in the next 20 years, which scares the **** out of "secular" countries like France.) Japan has an upside down population pyramid, which is poised to wreak all kinds of havoc.
Populations in democratic countries having a controlled number of babies around the replacement rate is probably a good thing.
That, and there is an inverse relationship between education and number of children. By underfunding education, you're more likely to increase the numbers of children - many of which, due to the demographics of who's having them, will end up "living off the government," as you so disparagingly put it. In other words, suck it up and pay your school-supporting property taxes, because it's better than the alternative =)
-
Tell that to all the people on fixed incomes that could loose their home if the levy is approved. Then who is left to pay the taxes on all the city owned parking lots left.
-
Tell that to all the people on fixed incomes that could loose their home if the levy is approved. Then who is left to pay the taxes on all the city owned parking lots left.
OK, to be fair, levies are an entirely different kettle of fish than what we've been talking about so far. And more to the point (as most property tax increases are in the order of 10-30%) if a few hundred dollars in property tax (which can be spread over a year's expenses) mean the difference between paying and defaulting on the mortgage, the people who have such a mortgage in the first place have purchased well beyond their means. If you're just talking about a failure to pay their property taxes, municipalities typically don't start by seizing property, they start with liens.
-
I'm talking about people that own their home outright. People that own money to the bank on their property normally have to pay the taxes to the bank who then pays the money to the county who distributes it back to the local government. The older people or disabled that worked all their lived to own their home are now have the choice of paying their taxes or buying food/medicine. A levy (and almost the entire property tax base is levy money of some kind) can mean that difference.
-
that would make sense, except you have to pay for garbage, sewage, water, gas, electricity, etc on a monthly basis on top of your property tax. those bills should cover their respective infrastructure. i can understand police fire and local road systems (shouldn't car taxes cover those), but you still have to pay property taxes in areas where you dont have anything. people i know in the alaskan bush get taxed big time, with no infrastructure at all for those taxes to pay for. i kinda think you should get what you pay for. if theres anything i dont like about the tax system, its the 50 million different kinds of taxes you end up paying. i very much doubt anyone can list all the taxes you could end up paying in america, theres that many of them. still the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. this is why i think the world needs to be nuked (of course then everyone would need to pay nuke tax).
The bills you pay are for service, not for infrastructure. Look at it this way - do you think people prefer having lower utilities bills and property taxes that pay for the utilities infrastructure over paying much larger individual utility bills every month?
Property taxes only cover infrastructure in the municipality OR county OR district that you reside in. So people who own property are essentially paying for upkeep on the systems that allow them to live there - be it the roads, the water lines, the sewer lines, the fire service, the police service (which, in areas where there is no municipal police, will pay for contracts with State/outside police).
Ultimately, property taxes are a way for municipalities to cover their costs. As municipalities already function with enormous assistance from higher levels of government, I think a direct method of income collection is in their best interest. I'd love to see all taxes reduced to value-added tax schemes because it is directly applied based on consumption (as opposed to income taxes, that hit you regardless of your consumption levels), but property taxes are a necessary evil. On the plus side, they are proportional - the higher the assessed value of your property, the higher the taxes - so the premise is that each household pays according to their ability to do so (afford a more expensive home, pay more property taxes). That can be a little problematic when the geniuses in the financial sector let people buy homes well beyond their financial reach, though *cough cough*.
im not really against taxes, i just think they need to be proportional to the services you receive from your government.
-
I see no problem. In fact I prefer that the street lights work, the roads don't look like total crap, etc. On a family trip we crossed state lines from our home into another state with lesser tax revenue, and you could literally see a demarcation along the state line because of how crappy the highway was on the other side.
Well, that's what petroleum taxes i thought were supposed to go for that maintaining road stuff. And i'm glad i only get my trash picked up only if i request a dumpster from the local sanitation company. It's cheaper to take out my own trash.
Property taxes existed since before the american revolution and have existed throughout its history, how is the country becoming more communist?
Hardy har har har. The time you speak of was when a british government was in place. I just mean property taxes in america after the revolution.
It's rather the need to own a house that's the problem I think.
In this case it's really not. But, at the same time sort of is. If you paid for the property in full, and then missed a tax payment on the land for a couple of months and you get booted off of it. Well then surely you just got booted out of your house on the land too.
Now i figured some people would just brag how good taxes are. Taxes are great to a point, but thx for missing the concept. This topic is not about what the taxes go for, it's what land taxes actually represent in a country where we have the right to own land. But i'll address the issue again.
THE LAND YOU PAID FOR IN FULL THAT YOU PAY TAXES ON IS NOT OWNED BY YOU. WHAT'S THE POINT ON PURCHASING LAND THAT YOU NEED TO PAY RENT ON AFTERWARDS TO KEEP IT?
This is what i mean by my whole communistic comment for america since in communistic government rule people don't get the right to own land. In this, paying taxes on land you own is anti-american. This would be like how suppressing free speech is anti-american.
-
Property taxes existed since before the american revolution and have existed throughout its history, how is the country becoming more communist?
Hardy har har har. The time you speak of was when a british government was in place. I just mean property taxes in america after the revolution.
So I assume you want to ignore the entire history (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us) of the US then?
-
I warned you all on the first page, but nooooo
-
Now i figured some people would just brag how good taxes are. Taxes are great to a point, but thx for missing the concept. This topic is not about what the taxes go for, it's what land taxes actually represent in a country where we have the right to own land. But i'll address the issue again.
THE LAND YOU PAID FOR IN FULL THAT YOU PAY TAXES ON IS NOT OWNED BY YOU. WHAT'S THE POINT ON PURCHASING LAND THAT YOU NEED TO PAY RENT ON AFTERWARDS TO KEEP IT?
This is what i mean by my whole communistic comment for america since in communistic government rule people don't get the right to own land. In this, paying taxes on land you own is anti-american. This would be like how suppressing free speech is anti-american.
Dude, paying taxes on something doesn't mean you forfeit your right to own it.
You want to own a physical part of a community? Well, then you can pay the tax that helps fund that community.
It's not communism, it's being part of a community. Or has selfishness really gone THAT far?
Again, for God's sake, please lrn2communist. Or at least read a book on it. You're getting it all wrong. You're Red Scaring.
-
I'm talking about people that own their home outright. People that own money to the bank on their property normally have to pay the taxes to the bank who then pays the money to the county who distributes it back to the local government. The older people or disabled that worked all their lived to own their home are now have the choice of paying their taxes or buying food/medicine. A levy (and almost the entire property tax base is levy money of some kind) can mean that difference.
You're still dealing with individual circumstances, though. Eliminating certain portions of property taxes is not going to get rid of the basic problem: that some people's incomes remain fixed while the cost of living goes up. The fix for that isn't rebuilding the tax system - it's pension reform. If your income never goes up and you have insufficient savings to cover the difference, then soon or later your costs are going to exceed income. Increases in property taxes may contribute to the problem, but so are increases in everything else. And inflation, unfortunately, is a fact of the capitalist economic system.
I feel for people facing these kinds of problems, but at the the end of the day the problem is systemic. If there are that many facing that sort of dilemma in your area, then it sounds like it's time to turf the standing municipal/county council and elect a set of new representatives that get what their constituents are going through.
-
solution: don't live in a city.
granted this is only a partial solution as there are still county based property taxes, but if you do not own land in an incorporated area then it's an order of magnitude lower.
-
Yea all the jobs went overseas because of corporate greed. There is nothing left here. Almost all the good jobs are gone. Most of the small businesses are gone. All the good property that could house business is either brownfield or owned be people who left and guess what don't pay their taxes so there are liens on it and it can't be sold. New businesses won't move in because of taxes and lack of infrastructure that actually exists (fiber right to the south end of town) but no one can afford. Replacing local government won't fix any of that and since it's all a good old boys club of relatives good luck trying.
-
And you just hit my big beef with property taxes. Schools. I choose not to have kids so why should I have to pay for schools while a majority of the people that have kids in the school district where I live don't pay a penny in property tax because they are in low income housing?
I don't think anyone should have the right to vote on property taxes unless they pay them or pay rent to someone that does.
Because in the long run it's extremely beneficial to you that society produces educated young people who can go on to become productive members of society and pay taxes. Public education is probably one of the single most important things to have happened to society and the development of technology and science. I'd wager good money the massive development humanity has made in the past few centuries compared to the rest of human history has a lot to do with the fact that the portion of the population that receives a basic education is much higher due to public schools. On the flip side the implications towards society if it's education system was suddenly only funded by those who currently have children eligible for education and can afford it are not particularly good. I'll assume the repercussion should be fairly self evident, and reiterate that even if you don't have children it is within your self interest that you pay for public education. Unless of course you would much rather have an ever increasing pool of illiterate, uneducated people that you need to support for their entire lives instead.
-
So I assume you want to ignore the entire history (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us) of the US then?
Forget the US, property taxes have existed as long has there has been governance, in one form or another. What do people think tithes were?
Now i figured some people would just brag how good taxes are. Taxes are great to a point, but thx for missing the concept. This topic is not about what the taxes go for, it's what land taxes actually represent in a country where we have the right to own land. But i'll address the issue again.
THE LAND YOU PAID FOR IN FULL THAT YOU PAY TAXES ON IS NOT OWNED BY YOU. WHAT'S THE POINT ON PURCHASING LAND THAT YOU NEED TO PAY RENT ON AFTERWARDS TO KEEP IT?
This is what i mean by my whole communistic comment for america since in communistic government rule people don't get the right to own land. In this, paying taxes on land you own is anti-american. This would be like how suppressing free speech is anti-american.
That's it, it's time you had a history lesson.
The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, establishing in part the principles upon which the United States of America was founded. No mention was made as to the economic system it was to adopt. Adam Smith published "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" also in 1776, arguing in favor of free market economic systems. By and large, Smith's principles were already at work in the economic systems of the larger 'Western' world. In essence, he described the evolution of the free-market capitalist system and its logical points of expansion.
Karl Marx didn't publish "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" until 1848, and only after he wrote The German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy, and Wage-Labour and Capital. It was followed by Grundrisse, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and the various volumes of Das Kapital. I say this only to illustrate the following point: The Communist Manifesto, as it is known, was not his first, last, or most important work - AND, his descriptions of Communism cannot be understood without reading all of those works.
Here's the kicker: Communism, as Marx saw it, was about the elimination of the inherent gap between the lower class (workers) and the upper classes (bourgeois). He predicted that Germany or Britain would be the first countries to overthrow the inherent inequalities of the capitalist system, as it was then known, and produce a fairer society in which people returned to a connection with the things they produced (there is an extremely important connection between production and the quality of a person's life which is integral to Marx, but which I don't have the time or space to delve into here).
Any of this sound familiar? Equal and fair society? Elimination of exploitation of one class of people by another? Elimination of a class-based social system? Yeah, those would be the principles on which the United States not only strove towards but actually operated.
Marx proposed a Communist system because he didn't predict the evolution of the middle class, which gained the majority of the power in democracies like the United States and Britain shortly before the beginning of the First World War. Communism, as Marx saw it, could only work in an advance industrial economy like Britain or Germany (at the time). The evolution of the United States from a minor state to a global power and the evolution of the middle class within it offered a less-jarring change of social system than a complete upheaval and actually progressed significantly toward the system which Marx proposed. Russia botched that. Russia was a backward, agrarian country that was made infinitely worse by the "Communist" revolution that took place there. In point of fact, the revolution was Communist in name only - the Soviet Union bore virtually no resemblance to the Communism that Marx defined.
So, to spell it out: the United States was actually founded and operates on the same principles that are encompassed by Marxist Communist ideology. Communism isn't about no property rights or wealth redistribution or any of that crap that comes to mind in the average person's head when they hear the world - Communism is about an equal and fair society, things the United States purports to strive towards (though there have been some serious setbacks on the equality/fairness side of things in the last 30 years).
In short:
1. Stop saying that property taxes = no land ownership = Communist; simply not true.
2. Stop saying Communist = anti-American, because that's also patently false.
You're relying on revisionist Cold War-era ideological nonsense, and it's making you look like even more of a fool than usual.
-
FUBAR, blame the general business environment, not anything specific to your town. If I were a business owner who wasn't fortunate to be politically connected, right now I would be battening down the hatches and trying not to be crushed by the unknown-yet-becoming-unshrouded costs of Obamacare, and the incoming tax increases that will take effect at the end of the year and disproportionally affect small business owners, who tend to earn 250k+ gross income yet piss a lot of that money away on business expenses.
-
Everything MP-Ryan said.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou.
-
In this case it's really not. But, at the same time sort of is. If you paid for the property in full, and then missed a tax payment on the land for a couple of months and you get booted off of it. Well then surely you just got booted out of your house on the land too.
Now i figured some people would just brag how good taxes are. Taxes are great to a point, but thx for missing the concept. This topic is not about what the taxes go for, it's what land taxes actually represent in a country where we have the right to own land. But i'll address the issue again.
THE LAND YOU PAID FOR IN FULL THAT YOU PAY TAXES ON IS NOT OWNED BY YOU. WHAT'S THE POINT ON PURCHASING LAND THAT YOU NEED TO PAY RENT ON AFTERWARDS TO KEEP IT?
This is what i mean by my whole communistic comment for america since in communistic government rule people don't get the right to own land. In this, paying taxes on land you own is anti-american. This would be like how suppressing free speech is anti-american.
Communist countries dont have property taxes.
And really, property taxes do reflect services we get from the government. Public schools, as ineffectual as they are, are far better than the alternative which is no schooling at all except for the wealthy. Police and fire services are also usually paid for by property taxes, infrastructure development also is paid for by property taxes. Nothing's free.
-
My whole thought process here is that after you purchased land, that if you don't pay the taxes on it, then it can be taken away. Who really owned it then? In this case it would be the government that owns it since they can take it away if you don't pay the rent/taxes on it. In that case what was the purpose of buying said land in the first place since it's on a permanent lease system?
This isn't about how taxing things can be good based on what the taxes are used for.
-
What's the point of purchasing your own private property if you can't even commit crimes on it?
-
What's the point of purchasing your own private property if you can't even commit crimes on it?
In the American South I can still shoot you for trespassing. :P
-
you might not get tossed in jail, but you can get raped in civil court.
-
My whole thought process here is that after you purchased land, that if you don't pay the taxes on it, then it can be taken away. Who really owned it then? In this case it would be the government that owns it since they can take it away if you don't pay the rent/taxes on it. In that case what was the purpose of buying said land in the first place since it's on a permanent lease system?
This isn't about how taxing things can be good based on what the taxes are used for.
So how do you suggest the states pay for the various services? People who live in a certain area generally send their kids to that area's school, use the police/fire departments when needed, etc, etc. So really, if people in those areas are going to use services, which aren't free, why shouldn't they pay for it?
-
it seems as though however if you are willing to do without any of these services that you should be able to find somewhere that you can avoid paying for them.
-
Nope. If you want to live in civilized society, you have to help pay for its upkeep.
-
So how do you suggest the states pay for the various services? People who live in a certain area generally send their kids to that area's school, use the police/fire departments when needed, etc, etc. So really, if people in those areas are going to use services, which aren't free, why shouldn't they pay for it?
This isn't a thought process about what the taxes go for or people assuming i have a rejection of land taxes, but rather for who is really considered the owner of the land in the end.
-
I would just like to point out that Dubai has no property taxes.
-
So how do you suggest the states pay for the various services? People who live in a certain area generally send their kids to that area's school, use the police/fire departments when needed, etc, etc. So really, if people in those areas are going to use services, which aren't free, why shouldn't they pay for it?
This isn't a thought process about what the taxes go for or people assuming i have a rejection of land taxes, but rather for who is really considered the owner of the land in the end.
The reason communist countries dont have property taxes is because the state OWNS the land.
it seems as though however if you are willing to do without any of these services that you should be able to find somewhere that you can avoid paying for them.
The mideast, but then again those governments are hopelessly corrupt. Then again there's also north korea, they have no property taxes either. The point is, paying property taxes gives you a stake in the operation of your government in addition to paying for services.
I would just like to point out that Dubai has no property taxes.
AFIK none of the wealthy gulf oil states have taxes of any kind. But its no accident that they are amoung the most corrupt and repressive governments in the world.
(http://i14.tinypic.com/2vu0s49.jpg)
They use oil money that should be spent on the people to live the high life and buy things like this, a diamond studded mercedes benz.
-
Nope. If you want to live in civilized society, you have to help pay for its upkeep.
if you define "civilized society" as requiring all those services then I think the qualifier for my question covers this.
-
if you define "civilized society" as requiring all those services then I think the qualifier for my question covers this.
Well sure, if you want to pull a Ted Kazinsky and build your little Unabomber hut in the woods nobody's going to charge you property taxes because you're most likely squatting.
-
Nope. If you want to live in civilized society, you have to help pay for its upkeep.
if you define "civilized society" as requiring all those services then I think the qualifier for my question covers this.
living in the bush has its perks, the land is much cheaper, property taxes are much lower. you have to do for yourself that which urbanites take for granted, like run your own generator, process your own garbage (ie burn it and buldoze the ashes into a pit), pump and filter your own drinking water (my sister uses rainwater and theres a spring in the woods that produces pretty good drinking water). even though the population out at point agassiz is less than around 20, they still have a law enforcement presence, usually a couple state troopers, who come out for a few days every month, and stay longer during hunting season to make sure nobody bags an illegal moose. we also have one or two forest service people out there year round (also to enforce hunting/fishing regulations). there are a small system of roads that were put in a hundred years ago by the original homesteaders there, and maintained by locals at their own expense and a dock that nobody knows who owns but that everyone pitches in to maintain. its hardly any infrastructure at all by comparison of what a city dweller pays for. someone still has to pay for it though.
-
so... are you agreeing with me?
-
so... are you agreeing with me?
to a degree, but theres nowhere in the usa that you can own property and not have to pay any property tax.
-
this is a fact, the issue at question is why must this be that way, and can't the repercussions be something other than having your property seized.
for example, mandate a road tax (get rid of fees on license plates and licenses) and if you fail to pay the road tax your are banned from using the roads, to leave your property you must gain permission from your neighbors to use their land or have someone who has paid their road tax drive you around. punishment for violating your ban would be a fine based on how much road tax you should be paying. this seems like a more fair way of doing it, you are not truly required to pay the tax, but practically everyone would have to.
-
it doesnt really matter how the tax is collected. it could be taken as income tax, people with higher incomes can afford more property and must therefore pay more income tax. whatever meathod that seems fairest should be used, and the amount of tax should be proportional to the services you receive. in practice fairness seldom factors in to what kind of taxes you pay.
we must not forget another service of the us government, the military. they are the ones making sure your property doesnt fall to invaders (or at least thats what they should be doing). so part of your property tax goes to making sure your property remains yours.
-
I could be mistaken but I don't think it actually does, however, that aside, I think you might have me there, there is no way not to use the military...
even if you were fantastically rich you could never compete with a nationstate, and even if you could the country can't bank on you being able to.
hmmm... /*thinks, pondering this comparing and contrasting with other services*/
-
I would like to point out the simple fact that the quality of local schools also has a direct impact on the resale value of one's property. Areas that tend to have nicer public schools also tend to see consistent raises in property value. So think of it as more of protecting your investment, pay your taxes and move on. There are far more dumber things that governments do to get your panties in a bunch about.
-
ok, you are making an argument for why it would be a good idea to participate, but not why it must be forced.
-
Because its bad for the nations economic development to have a bunch of illiterate stooges running around? School is mandatory for children under 16 for a reason.
edit: fixed sentence fragment.
-
ok, you are making an argument for why it would be a good idea to participate, but not why it must be forced.
Well, hey, if you're that much dick that you do not want to help maintain the society that raised you at all, I expect you'll end up in jail eventually due to your manifest sociopathic issues.
-
ok, you are making an argument for why it would be a good idea to participate, but not why it must be forced.
Because if it's not forced, people like you with this "I've got mine so you can go **** yourself" mindset will refuse to pay into the system. If paying for the education of your country's youth is so abhorrent to you, why don't you just consider it paying the state back for your own education. Isn't it nice to live in a country where you are guaranteed an education even if you can't pay for it upfront?
-
What if he went to a private school?
-
Because if it's not forced, people like you with this "I've got mine so you can go **** yourself" mindset will refuse to pay into the system. If paying for the education of your country's youth is so abhorrent to you, why don't you just consider it paying the state back for your own education. Isn't it nice to live in a country where you are guaranteed an education even if you can't pay for it upfront?
how many people would actually go through the trouble? how many people would not just say '**** it... whatever' and pay whatever they were told to pay? I don't think most people would be willing to go without the public services, and it would have the nice effect of reminding people of what they were paying for.
-
What if he went to a private school?
If he did, then I don't really know what to tell him.
Without guaranteed public education, we couldn't really call ourselves a land of opportunity and equality and ****. The whole American Dream (TM) bull**** is based on the idea that everybody has the opportunity to succeed in our country. If we could make it so that everybody starts out with at least the basics (healthcare, food, shelter, education) in sufficient quality and duration, then maybe we'd be a bit closer to having a really free and fair society.
It would be nice if private schools didn't even have to exist, because it would mean that public schools are good enough that even being able to afford something expensive and fancy, wealthy families would choose to send their kids to the state-funded schools.
But even with guaranteed public education, you're not guaranteed a very good education. Property taxes help somewhat, but maybe we should forget the model of local taxes going to local schools. You can go look at most any rural school system and see why the model just isn't working.
We're going through this **** my county right now. The school board is trying to switch our school system to a "neighborhood schools" thing. Essentially, the idea is that kids would go to the school closest to their home. Besides the fact that overcrowding would end up making that completely false for a **** ton of kids in city areas, we'd end up with some schools with super high rates of poverty and some schools with super high rates of wealth and privilege. Which schools do you think attract the most teachers, and get to be the most selective about hiring teachers?
Ah, ****, I have class in 15 minutes and I'm naked.
[/rant]
Edit: I see your post, Bob, and I'll get to it later, probably, if somebody else doesn't say what I want to before I get the chance.
-
American public schools frequently under-perform compared to private schools, and have higher per-student costs to boot. Please don't tell me they need more money when in my state public schooling is guaranteed by the state constitution 40% of all general fund revenue.
-
American public schools frequently under-perform compared to private schools, and have higher per-student costs to boot. Please don't tell me they need more money when in my state public schooling is guaranteed by the state constitution 40% of all general fund revenue.
Re-read the first sentence of your post, then come up with an answer to iamzack's (largely correct) postulation that better teachers go to better schools.
-
Better teachers go to better schools, and better students go to better schools too. The failing of the US public school system is not due to one problem. Its not just that they don't have money, its not just that schools don't have enough accountability, its a variety of factors.
-
Because if it's not forced, people like you with this "I've got mine so you can go **** yourself" mindset will refuse to pay into the system. If paying for the education of your country's youth is so abhorrent to you, why don't you just consider it paying the state back for your own education. Isn't it nice to live in a country where you are guaranteed an education even if you can't pay for it upfront?
how many people would actually go through the trouble? how many people would not just say '**** it... whatever' and pay whatever they were told to pay? I don't think most people would be willing to go without the public services, and it would have the nice effect of reminding people of what they were paying for.
With the exception of living out in the sticks by yourself I'm not quite sure how you expect to exist in civilization without public services. Sure you can do without utilities and live like a medieval person, but the police can't just ignore crime that occurs on your plot of land, the fire dept can't ignore it if your property turns into a damn blaze since it'll likely spread off your property. Plus how the hell are you going to travel if you can't use public roads?
-
so your answer to my question would be: not enough to matter.
-
so your answer to my question would be: not enough to matter.
More that if you live in any sort of community I don't think its possible to cut yourself off from public services. If you live in a town or city you can't just say "screw taxes I call this lot of land Petoria!" Police and Fire just can't ignore what happens on your land and unless you decide to subsistence farm on your land and never leave home your going to need to use public roads. Hell even then I don't even think you can subsistence farm without consulting what ever permits and zoning laws your community enforces. Unless you are going to live outside society I don't think its possible to cut off services paid for by property taxes because someone wants to be a selfish twit.
-
Ever heard of the Amish? No taxes whatsoever. Yet there were a group of them working 2 house up today.
I think we should all get to add paying taxes as being against our religion......
-
I don't think religion should have anything to do with it.
-
The Amish don't pay into Social Security or receive worker's compensation. They pay all other taxes though.
http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/amishfaq.htm#tax
Self-employed Amish do not pay Social Security tax. Those employed by non- Amish employers do pay Social Security tax. The Amish do pay real estate, state and federal income taxes, county taxes, sales tax, etc.
The Amish do not collect Social Security benefits, nor would they collect unemployment or welfare funds. Self sufficiency is the Amish community's answer to government aid programs. Section 310 of the Medicare section of the Social Security act has a sub-section that permits individuals to apply for exemption from the self-employment tax if he is a member of a religious body that is conscientiously opposed to Social Security benefits but that makes reasonable provision of taking care of their own elderly or dependent members. The Amish have a long history of taking care of their own members. They do not have retirement communities or nursing homes; in most cases, each family takes care of their own, and the Amish community gives assistance as needed.
-
Yeah, I was going to say. If the Amish don't pay taxes, it's because they're not generating enough income to be taxable, not because they have some kind of exemption.
-
They don't pay income tax or property tax either at least not in Ohio. Religious exemption.
-
They don't pay income tax or property tax either at least not in Ohio. Religious exemption.
I don't believe that's possible. Organizations receive exemption. Individuals do not.
-
Yeah I'm still pretty sure they have to pay property tax. The only exemptions they get are the ones other religious organizations get, in addition to their Social Security and worker's compensation.
-
There are also exemptions for any group established in the 50's or before. Apparently they do have to (or are supposed to) pay property taxes on business property. They are also supposed to pay income tax if they work away from the community but there is no way they actually do.
-
Ever heard of the Amish? No taxes whatsoever. Yet there were a group of them working 2 house up today.
I think we should all get to add paying taxes as being against our religion......
The Amish also don't use any kind of modern technology either........
-
Dude, paying taxes on something doesn't mean you forfeit your right to own it.
I never said that, and i'm also not trying to imply that.
If you miss a tax payment for a while and you get kicked off of your property, then you certainly did forfeit your right to own it because the local government came in and possessed it. Again, my question is about who really owns the land if people can come in and kick you off of it?
This isn't about paying taxes equals forfeiting ownership. It's about if land taxes had to be paid in the first place did you ever own it?
It's not communism, it's being part of a community. Or has selfishness really gone THAT far?
I guess it doesn't occur to you that the word communism is obviously based off of the word community. And my whole rant isn't about selfishness.
So how do you suggest the states pay for the various services? People who live in a certain area generally send their kids to that area's school, use the police/fire departments when needed, etc, etc. So really, if people in those areas are going to use services, which aren't free, why shouldn't they pay for it?
I'm not in here for talking about taxes. I did not display being totally retarded concerning what taxes are used for either. All i did was not talk about what the taxes get used for. I'm after something more juicy.
The reason communist countries dont have property taxes is because the state OWNS the land.
I don't see much difference here except over here being offered the illusion of ownership. With either one, the state can still come in and kick you out. Just that in communism, state ownership is explicit.
I'm asking who really owns the land if taxes must be paid for it?
You probably also wont answer it.
-
I'm asking who really owns the land if taxes must be paid for it?
You probably also wont answer it.
That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.
-
That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.
To be fair, you're comparing apples to oranges there. It barely applies to his argument. And the power company isn't going to seize your computer, if you stop paying your electric bill.
-
so your answer to my question would be: not enough to matter.
OK here's the answer: unless you can do without medicine, electricity, petrol, food grown by someone else, you'll need modern society. For all those amenities and "basics" a huge number of people are needed.
...so when you pay for education and welfare of other people you're also paying for your very own upkeep.
Read this from Charles Stross: Insufficient Data (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/07/insufficient-data.html).
Around 1900, it took the effort of about 20-30% of a nation's work-force to provide food for everybody; and another 30-50% working in factories to produce clothing, machinery, and processed materials like bricks and billets of pig iron. Today, we only need 0.5-1% of the work force to feed everyone, and another 1-4% working in industry to produce the basics — but the microspecialities have exploded, to the extent that a lot of our needs seem to require a trans-national economy to provide. There are only two vendors of wide-body airliners on any scale today, Boeing and Airbus, and both of them are effectively multinational consortia (more than half the components of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner are produced overseas, and shipped to Seattle for final assembly). There seems to only be room for one vendor of super-Jumbo airliners — if Boeing and Airbus tried to exploit that niche simultaneously, they'd both starve — so they appear to be avoiding conflict in that (and some other) area(s). And so on.
So. I ask: how many people does it take, as a minimum, to maintain our current level of technological civilization?
-
That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.
yeah, cause last time I didn't pay my electricity bill they came and confiscated my electronics.
-
Again, my question is about who really owns the land if people can come in and kick you off of it?
The United States of America owns it in the end. Unless you want to start your own country, the land you live on inside these borders belongs to the USA. You are just renting it.
It's not communism, it's being part of a community. Or has selfishness really gone THAT far?
I guess it doesn't occur to you that the word communism is obviously based off of the word community.
Don't insult my intelligence.
For one, not everything about communism is evil. Two, being part of a community is just as American as apple pie.
And my whole rant isn't about selfishness.
Yes, it is.
You want something for yourself without having any responsibility to the people around you. That's selfishness. You can scream "taxes are evil" till the day you die, but fact is, it goes to help the people around you. You don't pay that, you're just being selfish.
I'm not in here for talking about taxes. I did not display being totally retarded concerning what taxes are used for either. All i did was not talk about what the taxes get used for. I'm after something more juicy.
Dude, the whole thread is called property taxes. The whole thread started about you complaining about having to pay them, and then irrationally screaming "COMMUNISM!" when that's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
Live in this country, play by its lawful rules. Property taxes have been around since the USA was founded. It's a responsibility.
-
yeah, cause last time I didn't pay my electricity bill they came and confiscated my electronics.
Me too! Although at the time I thought it was a robber who took them. :P
-
That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.
yeah, cause last time I didn't pay my electricity bill they came and confiscated my electronics.
No, instead they cut off your power so you can't use your computer anymore. Same effect really.
-
I guess it doesn't occur to you that the word communism is obviously based off of the word community.
In point of fact it's not, but you haven't let facts get in the way of your foolishness so far, so why start now?
If you look at residential land titles (I'm positive that you haven't), you'll find that the majority are listed as "Fee Simple" estates, and virtually always exempt mineral rights. Fee simple grants the owner of the title absolute ownership over the property to transfer title and undertake what s/he pleases on it, subject to the legal obligations imposed upon the owner by governing authorities. Those authorities consist of the municipality up to and including the federal government. Here's an excerpt from the legal title for my property (identifying details removed, naturally):
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PLAN 0325486
BLOCK 17
LOT 71
EXCEPTING THEREOUT ALL MINES AND MINERALS
ESTATE: FEE SIMPLE
ATS REFERENCE: X;X;X;X;SW
MUNICIPALITY: TOWN OF X
REFERENCE NUMBER: XXX XXX XXX
Among the legal obligations imposed upon the owner is the obligation to pay property taxes. It is not a rent - the property title remains in the name of the landowner. The provisions for seizure are not arbitrary or discretionary. Rather, seizure is a penalty imposed by the governing body for a failure to meet one's legal obligations.
Just as you can go to jail for failure to pay income tax under federal legislation, other government bodies have the right to seize real property for non-payment of legally-imposed taxes. As it is technically a crime to fail to pay a legally-imposed tax, the law has provisions for penalties or recompense.
You own the land - but legal ownership comes with both rights and responsibilities. You have absolute legal right to possession of your property, but you have legal obligations to pay the taxes owed. If you do not pay them, you can be stripped of the legal title to the property as a penalty/compensation. This is no different than the legal right to liberty - if you fail to meet your responsibilities (to obey the law) you can be stripped of that right and be incarcerated.
-
No, instead they cut off your power so you can't use your computer anymore. Same effect really.
no that's a completely different situation, it is in no way analogous. in one situation you lose property in another you loose access to a resource needed to operate said property. just because it is inoperable does not mean that you no longer have ownership of it, they are completely orthogonal concepts.
-
Anything is only owned so far as one can defend it. So yeah, the only way you could 100% completely OWN a piece of land would be if you could kill or otherwise dissuade anyone who would try to take it from you.
-
its simple, buy property, buy nukes, claim yourself a sovereign state with a nuclear arsenal.
-
That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.
You still own your computer in the end. Might not be usable, but it was not taken from you.
Don't insult my intelligence.
For one, not everything about communism is evil. Two, being part of a community is just as American as apple pie.
Not really trying to insult your intelligence. I just thought the word usage you used for that sentence was funny. And i am not equating being in a community with communism. I was noting on the word usage, because this
It's not communism, it's being part of a community.
was sort of funny to read. It sparked my imagination and the imagery was someone in self denial about being a communist telling themselves while staring in the mirror repeatedly :lol: This was random of me.
You want something for yourself without having any responsibility to the people around you. That's selfishness. You can scream "taxes are evil" till the day you die, but fact is, it goes to help the people around you. You don't pay that, you're just being selfish.
This is not about being selfishness. It's about purely who owns the land in the end. This is a discussion. It's not about my current affairs or how i plan to rebel in the future. I'm not screaming taxes are evil either. I have expressed not really liking the whole illusion to ownership for land mainly because i think ownership should reflect what owning something actually is.
Dude, the whole thread is called property taxes. The whole thread started about you complaining about having to pay them, and then irrationally screaming "COMMUNISM!" when that's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
You can blame me for not picking a better title and irrationally saying communism. Land ownership would have been a better title. Not the first time i could have picked a better title :) I'm only complaining about the taxes for what they represent when someone has purchased a plot of land; not taxes in general.
But, thx for answering the question.
In point of fact it's not, but you haven't let facts get in the way of your foolishness so far, so why start now?
Community....communism. I see a similarity here. I was thinking more about the word commune after community and communism were used in the same sentence which i thought was funny.
Among the legal obligations imposed upon the owner is the obligation to pay property taxes. It is not a rent - the property title remains in the name of the landowner.
My point is that property taxes can be thought of as rent. And if thought they are thought of as rent. Then who really owns the land? For myself, i think of property taxes as rent.
-
The word communism comes from common, which is also the origin for the word community.
-
I thought it came from the fact that everything is supposed to be communally owned in a communist society.
-
My point is that property taxes can be thought of as rent. And if thought they are thought of as rent. Then who really owns the land? For myself, i think of property taxes as rent.
Yes, it can be presented as a similar situation to "paying rent", but only because the theory of "renting" has such a broad and simple definition that it can be applied to many things completely unrelated to the true meaning as we use it.
As MP-Ryan very effectively pointed out:
You own the land - but legal ownership comes with both rights and responsibilities. You have absolute legal right to possession of your property, but you have legal obligations to pay the taxes owed. If you do not pay them, you can be stripped of the legal title to the property as a penalty/compensation. This is no different than the legal right to liberty - if you fail to meet your responsibilities (to obey the law) you can be stripped of that right and be incarcerated.
So, S-99, by extending your argument to the realm of common law, we don't even own ourselves. We pay "rent" by acting in a fashion as outlined by our government. When we fail to make that rent, and act in a manner contravening said outlines, we are stripped of our freedom and our persons are "repossessed" and placed in a correctional institution. From this, we can conclude - using the very same logic you have demonstrated - that we cannot truly claim ownership over our own lives. Indeed, it would seem that our very existence is allowed only at the sufferance of our own respective governments, and hence, the rest of humanity.
I'm not entirely sure whether or not that makes sense whatsoever, but I was just trying to demonstrate how the question of true ownership, at any level, can be shoehorned into bloody well anywhere!
-
To be fair, you need to be delinquent for three years. Plus if you file for bankruptcy I believe the gov't will not foreclose your property. So really if you're truly unable to pay property taxes your house isn't just going to be snapped up by the county treasurer. If you can pay and you've decided not to, then you've been receiving gov't services without paying your due, there are consequences.
-
Community....communism. I see a similarity here. I was thinking more about the word commune after community and communism were used in the same sentence which i thought was funny.
Word similarity does not equate with etymology. For one, the original term was written in German and Communism is the closest translation in English. Both community and Communism derive a root from the word commun, derived in turn from the Old French term comun, which actually has a meaning closely equivalent in definition to the English word "common." So while community and Communism share a root, one is not based upon the other, and they are not even terribly similar in meaning.
My point is that property taxes can be thought of as rent. And if thought they are thought of as rent. Then who really owns the land? For myself, i think of property taxes as rent.
If you're unfamiliar with the actual concept of rent and its historical use then I suppose one could call it rent, but that's the equivalent of being unfamiliar with the actual concept of community and its historical use and calling it Communism. See what I did there?
Sure, if you ignore all evidence to the contrary you can think of one thing as being or equivalent to something else, but that doesn't make you correct, it just means your assertion has absolutely no factual or evidence-derived basis. In short, it becomes an opinion - which have quite legitimately been compared in simile to a certain orifice of the body.
-
To be fair, you need to be delinquent for three years. Plus if you file for bankruptcy I believe the gov't will not foreclose your property. So really if you're truly unable to pay property taxes your house isn't just going to be snapped up by the county treasurer. If you can pay and you've decided not to, then you've been receiving gov't services without paying your due, there are consequences.
i think the government should pay you the balance on the value of the property, after back taxes have been recovered. i dont know if they do this or not. still, if youre in danger of loosing your property because of back taxes, that would probably be a good time to sell it. one of my ex girlfriends (the ugly one) was in a situation where she couldnt pay the taxes on a $500,000 peice of property she inherited. so she sold it. paid off the back taxes, bought her a nice sports car and rented a rather pricey down town apartment.
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_18753_the-6-most-creative-abuses-loopholes_p2.html
scroll down to number 2.
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_18753_the-6-most-creative-abuses-loopholes_p2.html
scroll down to number 2.
Jeez I hope someone in that dynasty someday names their kid Jabba.