Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Listen talk radio a lot? Actually, dear, Soviets comrades didn't tax land & property, you build your house, you lose you income, you keep your house for as long as you want, no tax pressure. No property taxes = stable communities = no social/income segregation. Of course, Soviets didn't allow land ownership (only indefinite use) and they didn't allow a single person to occupy obscene amount of land surface. Property taxes destroy fabric of communities, making even the word "community" to sound weird if it's applied to our everyday life.
Actually, you feel like a caged animal in the post Soviet countries (not speaking of USA) if you remember that once upon a time there was a country where a human being had unlimited access to millions acres of land, no 100 miles trips, no string attached, no fees, no fishing licenses, no conditions and curfews, no "no trespassing" and "no loitering". That's this unconditional right to occupy land space that makes you free, private property makes you caged, especially considering how precarious, expensive and conditional that ownership status is.
First-world consumers want new, new, new all the time. Our Federal income taxes pay for science and technology development. We need an educated populace. Some of these taxes go to education, especially higher education. We always want medicine and hospitals to cure our diseases. Our Federal taxes pay for improvements in medical care. In general, the more money someone has the more likely they are to be using those resources. Rich people usually get more education. They use more technology. They live longer than poor people for a reason: they get more medical attention and more and better drugs. Again, they should pay more taxes.
To Jukesgrrl: You made some valid points in your long post, of which I only quoted a single paragraph to comment on by way of example, but those points end up diluted by your anti-rich people diatribe. In an effort to make my rebuttal short, let's take the issue of the rich living longer than the poor (see bolding above). Yes, they do, an average. And part of the reason is, like you said, that they get more medical attention. However, you conveniently neglected to mention health habits, such a smoking. There is an enormous difference in smoking rates by educational and socio-economic level. Enormous. And to claim as explanation that the rich are better educated would be ludicrous. The poorest of the poor know that smoking is bad for them; one cannot exist in our society and not know that. It is more logical to conclude that the reason the rich are rich is because they have the ability to plan for the long term, and the reason the poor are poor is that they live for the moment. (Yes, I know, there are other reasons as well, but most of them can be subsumed under that). Therefore, not starting to smoke, or quitting if one has started, is related to the self-discipline to plan for the long term.
Also, the two sentences which I bolded contain a non-sequitur, because the assumption is that people's "medical attention" is paid for out of tax dollars. Some of it is, of course, mostly the medical attention received by the poor. So the rich are paying out-of-pocket for their own medical attention and at the same time paying taxes to support the medical attention given to the poor through Medicaid programs in each state (which operate with mostly federal funding) and through publically supported emergency room care.
The smoking issue I raised is meant to be an illustration of a point; it is not meant to be the entire explanation of why the rich live longer than the poor, but rather an example of the many reasons.
You may not pay property tax on your car (although some states do), but you do (I assume) have to pay to renew your registration every year or two, which is basically a tax on your car. In my area, it costs more for newer cars, so again, not a flat tax.
So "owning" land isn't really any different than "owning" a car, in regard to taxes. They call it something different, but the end result is the same.
As for the other discussion taking place, as someone with no kids, I have no issue with a large part of my property taxes going to schools. I am very pro-education and think every child deserves the chance to better themselves, regardless of how lazy or hardworking, rich or poor, dumb or smart, their parents are.
I think the difference is that if you purchase a car and decide not to register it or purchase insurance and stick it inside your garage, you dont get taxed on that car. So, you can own the car, but dont have to pay taxes on that car unless you want to. With the house/land, you dont have a choice, once you own it, you gotta pay the tax.
People with no children benefit from the schools (aside from their presumably having attended them themselves) by having a relatively educated populace with which to interact, do business, etc.
People who no cars benefit from the roads if they consume anything at all that roads were used to produce or bring to them. Even their house, unless it's built from wood and stone produced onsite and hauled with animals, was built using roads. Unless everything they eat is grown onsite rather than purchased at a grocery store, roads were used to bring it to the store where they purchase it.
Ok, so the house was purchased from products that required roads to be used, roads were also used to bring it to the store where the puchase it....so, the question still remains...why does that person have to keep paying tax month after month for the rest of their life? How about paying SOME tax and then leaving the person alone after they have 'satisfied' their tax debt?
Ok, so the house was purchased from products that required roads to be used, roads were also used to bring it to the store where the puchase it....so, the question still remains...why does that person have to keep paying tax month after month for the rest of their life? How about paying SOME tax and then leaving the person alone after they have 'satisfied' their tax debt?
Good luck with that.
Ad valorem taxes are the way that nearly every state, county, and city in the US pays for schools, infrastructure, roads, bridges, fire and police protection, etc.. You are suggesting something that will never ever happen. Period.
Oh yea - I've heard that there are areas in very remote sections of Alaska (I think), that have no property taxes. Of course, there are no schools, roads, bridges, fire and police protection, etc.. So - maybe you should move there?
On a more basic level, without property taxes, there would be no roads, to get to your property.
Yes there would. Did you ever hear of tarifs and sales tax? Tarifs were used to run the federal government and sales tax was used to run state governments before we all became slaves to the Fed and Income Tax in 1913.
BTW, you don't really own land. We are all slaves. Don't believe me? Then take a look at your deed and see that you are listed as the "Tenant" not the "Owner." America has been a land of slavery since 1913 and out of fear, manipulation, and the need to stay within one's comfort zone, most people kept (and keep) their eyes closed to this.
“Try not paying your taxes and find out
who owns your house.”
- Peter Fonda
Yes there would. Did you ever hear of tarifs and sales tax? Tarifs were used to run the federal government and sales tax was used to run state governments before we all became slaves to the Fed and Income Tax in 1913.
BTW, you don't really own land. We are all slaves. Don't believe me? Then take a look at your deed and see that you are listed as the "Tenant" not the "Owner." America has been a land of slavery since 1913 and out of fear, manipulation, and the need to stay within one's comfort zone, most people kept (and keep) their eyes closed to this.
“Try not paying your taxes and find out
who owns your house.”
- Peter Fonda
So, I just looked at my deed.
According to the deed, my wife and I own the land and all improvements on it, in fee simple, with no mention of "tenants" anywhere.
From Bing dictionary:
fee sim·ple
outright ownership: a form of property ownership in which the owner has outright and unconditional disposal rights
It is about time to put the "you don't own your property" superstition properly to bed.
Yes there would. Did you ever hear of tarifs and sales tax? Tarifs were used to run the federal government and sales tax was used to run state governments before we all became slaves to the Fed and Income Tax in 1913.
BTW, you don't really own land. We are all slaves. Don't believe me? Then take a look at your deed and see that you are listed as the "Tenant" not the "Owner." America has been a land of slavery since 1913 and out of fear, manipulation, and the need to stay within one's comfort zone, most people kept (and keep) their eyes closed to this.
“Try not paying your taxes and find out
who owns your house.”
- Peter Fonda
That's a silly assertion. Anyone who has ever taken a basic real estate course knows that real estate ownership consists of a "bundle of rights" and all real estate is subject to taxation and local laws.
You know the saying "the ones with the guns make the rules".
If you purchase a house and the land, i was just wondering why a land owner has to pay 'property tax' on a monthly basis for the life of the home? Why is purchasing land different from purchasing a car? If you buy a car, you pay tax when you buy it and that's it.....but for a home, you're paying month after month.
Seems like its similar to paying a bully at school 'protection money' so that he will let you eat your own lunch.
The 'tax' sort of tells me that you really dont own the land, you're just 'leasing it' from big brother.
The "property tax" or "land tax" is an old system of taxation that dates back to a time when a large number of people earned their income through farming.
It was considered fair back then because it was kinda like a tax on income and a tax on wealth. It was also considered easier back in the day that no one could reasonably be expected to keep track of what they earned in a given year. It should probably be replaced with a progressive income tax, but that would mean change, and you can't change any tax system because you will always have someone that ends up paying more and they will scream.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Property Tax Isn't Necessary
