[iamzack]

Nope. If you want to live in civilized society, you have to help pay for its upkeep.

[S-99]

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.

[Topgun]

I would just like to point out that Dubai has no property taxes.

[Kosh]

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.



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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[Bobboau]

so... are you agreeing with me?

[Nuke]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[Bobboau]

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*/

[BrotherBryon]

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.

[Bobboau]

ok, you are making an argument for why it would be a good idea to participate, but not why it must be forced.

[Kosh]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[iamzack]

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?

[Topgun]

What if he went to a private school?

[Bobboau]

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.

[iamzack]

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.