4 ms·

> government owns both your land Yes, that's correct and why this is so controversial. I believe society has a right to tax land, because owning a completely

> government owns both your land Yes, that's correct and why this is so controversial. I believe society has a right to tax land, because owning a completely inelastic item like land prevents others from using it.

logfromblammo 8y ago
That's... the whole point of ownership. You can prevent all your neighbors from chopping down the nice shade tree in your front yard, and dragging it away for lumber or firewood. The issue at hand is that if you do not pay property taxes, the government will take ownership of the land away from you. That undermines the ownership. (So does eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture.) The ability to keep out everybody except the government is still useful, but not nearly as valuable, since anyone that really wants to take something from you can just use the government to do it. There are other sticks available to encourage people to contribute money to their communities. You could still assess someone's taxes based on the value of their land property, but rather than take the property, you cut off its access to municipality services. If you don't pay your vehicle tax, you don't lose your whole car, you just lose your license plate and the ability to drive your vehicle on public roads. Similarly, if you don't pay the property tax, maybe you lose the ability to connect to local utilities and make use of public services. Cops and firefighters charge fees to come to your property. Public schools charge your kids tuition to attend. Perhaps the city won't enforce street parking restrictions at the end of your driveway, and starts leaving the roadkill cleanup truck there. Or maybe the city just publishes a list of non-payers, and local businesses start refusing you service. Most critically, the local cops won't help you defend your property ownership. The problem isn't that property taxes exist, it's what happens if you don't pay them. If the actual result for not paying property tax is identical to a landlord evicting a non-paying tenant, the actual relationship to the property is not ownership.
- nimish 8y ago
  That's an extreme interpretation of ownership, particularly of land, which is subject to the superior title of the government (eminent domain) anyway. You choose to live in society you have to play by its rules. You have a vote as well, so it's not like you have no way to change things.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Government only retains sovereign ownership for land in fee simple. Some property in the US is actually allodial--although enforcement generally treats it like fee simple anyway, and any attempt to assert the rights inherent in that form of title requires a lawyer, so only the rich can really take advantage of it. Allodial title is a good thing. But the city still has to pay the bills. The rule is that prudent management of the commons has a cost, and that cost must be paid. It is reasonable to divvy up the bill by the extent to which someone is likely to benefit from the commons. As it turns out, assessing local taxes based on the value of land property owned in the jurisdiction is a reasonable approximation, it turns the tax rolls into an easy correspondence with the plat maps and ownership records, and it is not very difficult to assess. It's fine to assess the tax based on value of owned property. My point is that the taxes should attach to the owner of record, and not the property itself. Indeed, the article details several unintended consequences from various methods of assessment. It would also be reasonable to pay by a flat capitation, but that is a regressive tax in practice, despite being neutral in theory. Sales tax is more progressive, as the tax scales with the amount of money you can afford to spend. Income tax can also scale progressively, such that the people who can afford to pay more by virtue of higher incomes must do so. Those are all the responsibility of people. If they fail to pay, the punishment lands on them. And I think it is not proper to seize real property for debts that were unilaterally imposed on people without their explicit individual consent. Seize cash. Seize bank accounts. Seize stock certificates. Do not evict a family from their home. Do not take the vehicle they use to drive to work. And yet, those latter two are often the only asset classes subjected to property taxes. I am already a bit hostile to eminent domain thanks to the Kelo v. New London case, which stretched the concept of "public use" beyond the point of reason. I vote my one vote as hard as I can, and yet society still remains unjust. This is a failure of society's rules. Those treated unfairly by them have always had the option to stop playing by that set of rules, and institute another that they find more suitable. You have no inherent obligation to a society that does not respect your contributions to it. You have one vote. You also have one voice, that spreads based on the height of your soap box. You also have a wallet, which you can open or close based on the societal values behind those things you might wish to buy. And you have one clever ape brain, which has a built-in dislike of unfairness, and the ability to set goals and make plans. It is reasonable that one might wish to protest the imprudent spending of municipal funds by refusing to pay tax? Or is it preferable that one pays the tax, as assessed and on time, and then assassinates the mayor and city council, because all other reasonable and effective means of protest have been rendered unusable? I would prefer that protest via withholding of material support remain a viable option.

logfromblammo 8y ago

That's... the whole point of ownership. You can prevent all your neighbors from chopping down the nice shade tree in your front yard, and dragging it away for lumber or firewood. The issue at hand is that if you do not pay property taxes, the government will take ownership of the land away from you. That undermines the ownership. (So does eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture.) The ability to keep out everybody except the government is still useful, but not nearly as valuable, since anyone that really wants to take something from you can just use the government to do it. There are other sticks available to encourage people to contribute money to their communities. You could still assess someone's taxes based on the value of their land property, but rather than take the property, you cut off its access to municipality services. If you don't pay your vehicle tax, you don't lose your whole car, you just lose your license plate and the ability to drive your vehicle on public roads. Similarly, if you don't pay the property tax, maybe you lose the ability to connect to local utilities and make use of public services. Cops and firefighters charge fees to come to your property. Public schools charge your kids tuition to attend. Perhaps the city won't enforce street parking restrictions at the end of your driveway, and starts leaving the roadkill cleanup truck there. Or maybe the city just publishes a list of non-payers, and local businesses start refusing you service. Most critically, the local cops won't help you defend your property ownership. The problem isn't that property taxes exist, it's what happens if you don't pay them. If the actual result for not paying property tax is identical to a landlord evicting a non-paying tenant, the actual relationship to the property is not ownership.

nimish 8y ago
That's an extreme interpretation of ownership, particularly of land, which is subject to the superior title of the government (eminent domain) anyway. You choose to live in society you have to play by its rules. You have a vote as well, so it's not like you have no way to change things.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Government only retains sovereign ownership for land in fee simple. Some property in the US is actually allodial--although enforcement generally treats it like fee simple anyway, and any attempt to assert the rights inherent in that form of title requires a lawyer, so only the rich can really take advantage of it. Allodial title is a good thing. But the city still has to pay the bills. The rule is that prudent management of the commons has a cost, and that cost must be paid. It is reasonable to divvy up the bill by the extent to which someone is likely to benefit from the commons. As it turns out, assessing local taxes based on the value of land property owned in the jurisdiction is a reasonable approximation, it turns the tax rolls into an easy correspondence with the plat maps and ownership records, and it is not very difficult to assess. It's fine to assess the tax based on value of owned property. My point is that the taxes should attach to the owner of record, and not the property itself. Indeed, the article details several unintended consequences from various methods of assessment. It would also be reasonable to pay by a flat capitation, but that is a regressive tax in practice, despite being neutral in theory. Sales tax is more progressive, as the tax scales with the amount of money you can afford to spend. Income tax can also scale progressively, such that the people who can afford to pay more by virtue of higher incomes must do so. Those are all the responsibility of people. If they fail to pay, the punishment lands on them. And I think it is not proper to seize real property for debts that were unilaterally imposed on people without their explicit individual consent. Seize cash. Seize bank accounts. Seize stock certificates. Do not evict a family from their home. Do not take the vehicle they use to drive to work. And yet, those latter two are often the only asset classes subjected to property taxes. I am already a bit hostile to eminent domain thanks to the Kelo v. New London case, which stretched the concept of "public use" beyond the point of reason. I vote my one vote as hard as I can, and yet society still remains unjust. This is a failure of society's rules. Those treated unfairly by them have always had the option to stop playing by that set of rules, and institute another that they find more suitable. You have no inherent obligation to a society that does not respect your contributions to it. You have one vote. You also have one voice, that spreads based on the height of your soap box. You also have a wallet, which you can open or close based on the societal values behind those things you might wish to buy. And you have one clever ape brain, which has a built-in dislike of unfairness, and the ability to set goals and make plans. It is reasonable that one might wish to protest the imprudent spending of municipal funds by refusing to pay tax? Or is it preferable that one pays the tax, as assessed and on time, and then assassinates the mayor and city council, because all other reasonable and effective means of protest have been rendered unusable? I would prefer that protest via withholding of material support remain a viable option.