5 ms·

Yes. What's the alternative answer? What proposed relationship do you identify between paying taxes on something and the ownership of that thing?

tick_tock_tick 4y ago
> What's the alternative answer? Property taxes, and hopefully all forms of wealth taxes, are unconstitutional and local towns / state must find an alternative method of funding themselves such as higher income tax, sales, VAT, etc.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  Maybe there's a legal argument in the Constitution, I'm not a lawyer. What is baffling me is the idea that if you must pay a tax on something you don't own it. It seems like more of a philosophical claim than a legal one, but I can't imagine any basis to claim that it's true.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    A lot of things related to property ownership among other assets are ultimately philosophical. Although given that land (and other wealth) taxes have been around for something like six thousand years I don't see them going away soon.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    I think it comes from people operating on different definitions. The word own, at least as I learned it, means you alone have control of the thing, and it can't be taken from you unless you agree to give it away. Other people seem to have a different definition, and I can't easily put it to words. Something like "you have some control of this thing and you can keep that control as long as you meet some list of conditions". I find it hard to argue against calling that something closer to renting than owning. I don't know. How would you define ownership?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > The word own, at least as I learned it, means you alone have control of the thing, and it can't be taken from you unless you agree to give it away. This definition sucks because it's not the case practically anywhere, and I don't think making up some new word for what everyone means by "own" just so the "more rational than thou" set can take the word "own" to mean this nearly-useless-because-practically-nonexistent phenomenon, is helpful.
      - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
        I'm thinking more from the mindset of a child. As a child, all of my little posessions were mine, and I could share them (or not) as I saw fit. At some point, you become exposed to the real world and realize that it's really difficult to own anything like that, especially in a world where so many things are financed or come with subscriptions and cloud connections. But that first understanding of the concept still sticks.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      Can you point to any object, maybe outside of your body or intangible asset within your mind, that you "own" by this definition? That debtors and the courts can under no circumstances seize? If not, I would say your definition is bogus.
      - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
        Interesting question. How about things that nobody knows you have? These would probably tend to be smaller things just because its easier for them to go unnoticed, and if nobody knows about them, they wouldn't have any reason or ability to take them from you. I'm curious how you would define ownership?
        cool_dude85 4y ago
        This can't be a satisfying answer, otherwise you could "own" your land now, by your understanding, as long as it's done through enough overseas shell corps and so on. And still have to pay property taxes as per usual.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Imagine you decide to go 'soul searching', bought up a sizable chunk of land, packed up on goods, gave away everything else, and decided to just live off your land for a couple of years. By the time you got back to society, you'd probably find that "your" land was no longer yours. Unless you decided to stop what you were doing, go earn some USD, and give it to the government - they would seize your land. So it's really no different than rent. Incidentally this is not inherent. If tax were assessed in some way like min(5%_of_disposable_income, assessed_property_tax) then I think there'd be a much stronger argument of ownership, in spite of the fact that in the vast majority of scenarios there would be exactly 0 difference. But take our little scenario above. Just want to check out of society for a bit? You'd be absolutely free to do so, and when you came back your land would would still be your land. In fact it would never be taken from you except in some scenario where you broke the law, such as by tax evasion.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      Imagine a world where there are no taxes whatsoever, incredibly however a functional government with courts and such still exists. You buy a piece of land and go soul searching for a few years and come back to find you no longer own the land. Somebody you did wrong in the past sued you and won a judgement, got a lien against your land and sold it to make himself partially whole. Would you say that you did not "own" this land, you were just renting it?
- robcohen 4y ago
  Seems like quite the claim. I could conceivably see the argument against federal taxes, but state taxes? There’s no right to be free from taxes enshrined in the bill of rights.
- root_axis 4y ago
  Why are wealth taxes unconstitutional?
  - ke88y 4y ago
    Property taxes are not unconstitutional. Particularly state property taxes, which under even the most revisionist possible reading are very clearly not prohibited by the US constitution. In fact, at least one type of property tax is specifically enumerated in the constitution (Section 9)! So the notion that the founding fathers believed property taxes were unconstitutional -- while also enumerating a specific type of property tax in the constitution -- is ridiculous. IMO, if an extreme SCOTUS attempted to kill all forms of property taxes, a collective decision by legislatures and the executive to selectively ignore Marbury v Madison would be a more likely outcome than the end of property taxes. In general: the idea that the judiciary can "strike down" unconstitutional laws is much more tenuous than most of the things that fringe constitutional theories consider to be unconstitutional. I think this is where fantasies like ending property taxes or sovereign citizen stuff fall apart: if we're going to stretch the meaning of the constitution that far, then why continue putting so much unenumerated power into the judiciary? Also: taxing income without taxing property is ridiculously stupid public policy. We should be doing exactly the opposite: rewarding hard work and severely punishing lazy lay-abouts who sit around on generational properties instead of contributing to society by working and earning an income.
    - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
      Calling tariffs, what I assume you are referring too, a property tax is a bit of a stretch.
      - ke88y 4y ago
        No. Section 9 literally uses the word “tax”, and states that a "tax or duty" may be imposed, drawing an explicit distinction between "tax" and "duty" and thereby directly addressing potential misunderstandings such as yours. Section 9 VERY explicitly and VERY carefully allows for a property tax which is not a duty. Why would the framers include this clause, as written, if they believed it unconstitutional for Congress to enact property taxes? At the very least you would expect an exceptional clause if that were the case. This strains credulity, to put it mildly. State property taxes existed in the US for 100 years before and also during the constitutional convention. It strains credulity to claim that the framers intended for state property taxes to be unconstitutional while also not enumerating this fact and even specifically enumerating limits on taxation of certain types of property. Furthermore, the legislative and executive actions of constitutional convention members, within their respective commonwealths and states, clearly demonstrate that the framers did not intend to prohibit taxation of property particularly by non-federal governments (or even by the federal government, for that matter, as long as funds were equally distributed). Again, it strains credulity to claim that a framer would write a constitution intended to prevent states from taxing property, and then go serve in a state legislative assembly or executive that approved taxation based on the value of estates or properties. And we haven't even made it to the 9th amendment. Again: I'm much more willing to accept that Marbury v Madison was a mistaken interpretation of the constitution than I am to accept the US constitution can be somehow interpreted to disallow state property taxes. To be blunt, if SCOTUS tried to do something this blatantly ridiculous and made-up, most state governments and courts would simply ignore the ruling.
- ghaff 4y ago
  So my town has basically no commercial activity so sales/VAT/etc. is out. And while I don't know what the laws are for a local income tax, it's certainly extremely rare and, even if it could be done legally, it would be a huge transfer from working people to those who were retired, etc.
- jandrese 4y ago
  On the contrary in a capitalist society wealth taxes are the most moral taxes. The reason is that capitalism is inherently self reinforcing, if you have money you can make money. This causes a feedback loop that accelerates wealth upward until you end up in a feudal state. So it is the moral duty of the state to push wealth back down to keep the system from collapsing. Taxes need to be focused on passive sources of income like investments. Income that is generated by work that produced goods or services should be minimally taxed to encourage more of those activities.
- cafard 4y ago
  Isn't this subject to the sort of argument that Lincoln used in his Cooper Union speech? The signers and drafters of the Constitution mostly came from states that taxed property. They ruled out a federal property tax, it is true.
causi 4y ago
Are there any other possessions subject to an unlimited amount of tax? Arguably you don't own land, you just rent it from the government. However, logically speaking, you should only be paying tax based on the value of the ground and nothing else. The current scheme is rather perverse. I do work, earn income, pay income tax. Buy a house, pay transfer tax, then pay tax on it again as my property value goes up. Buy tree seedlings, pay sales tax. The same dollar is taxed for income, taxed again for sales, then taxed a third time after I plant them thereby increasing the value of my property. No wonder our society is dividing into people who own nothing and pay nothing and people who own everything and do everything they can to pay nothing.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Automobiles, boats, airplanes, essentially most large capital assets are potentially subject to a form of property tax depending on local law.
- vuln 4y ago
  Vehicles. Taxes paid when purchased, taxes paid on maintenance, taxes paid on fuel, yearly personal property tax, yearly registration (tax), insurance (tax)
- pydry 4y ago
  I strongly doubt property taxes anywhere exceed the rental value of the land.
  - causi 4y ago
    I'm just trying to live on it. I find the entire concept of using a fundamentally scarce resource like land to generate profit by being a middle-man perverse.
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      It's not for profit though. Presumably there are city services involved (fire, police, emergency), civil utilities (water and sewage perhaps, electricity), and state defense. You're paying to live in that environment created by the government around that parcel, not just on that parcel.

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

> What's the alternative answer? Property taxes, and hopefully all forms of wealth taxes, are unconstitutional and local towns / state must find an alternative method of funding themselves such as higher income tax, sales, VAT, etc.

cool_dude85 4y ago
Maybe there's a legal argument in the Constitution, I'm not a lawyer. What is baffling me is the idea that if you must pay a tax on something you don't own it. It seems like more of a philosophical claim than a legal one, but I can't imagine any basis to claim that it's true.
- ghaff 4y ago
  A lot of things related to property ownership among other assets are ultimately philosophical. Although given that land (and other wealth) taxes have been around for something like six thousand years I don't see them going away soon.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  I think it comes from people operating on different definitions. The word own, at least as I learned it, means you alone have control of the thing, and it can't be taken from you unless you agree to give it away. Other people seem to have a different definition, and I can't easily put it to words. Something like "you have some control of this thing and you can keep that control as long as you meet some list of conditions". I find it hard to argue against calling that something closer to renting than owning. I don't know. How would you define ownership?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > The word own, at least as I learned it, means you alone have control of the thing, and it can't be taken from you unless you agree to give it away. This definition sucks because it's not the case practically anywhere, and I don't think making up some new word for what everyone means by "own" just so the "more rational than thou" set can take the word "own" to mean this nearly-useless-because-practically-nonexistent phenomenon, is helpful.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      I'm thinking more from the mindset of a child. As a child, all of my little posessions were mine, and I could share them (or not) as I saw fit. At some point, you become exposed to the real world and realize that it's really difficult to own anything like that, especially in a world where so many things are financed or come with subscriptions and cloud connections. But that first understanding of the concept still sticks.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Can you point to any object, maybe outside of your body or intangible asset within your mind, that you "own" by this definition? That debtors and the courts can under no circumstances seize? If not, I would say your definition is bogus.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      Interesting question. How about things that nobody knows you have? These would probably tend to be smaller things just because its easier for them to go unnoticed, and if nobody knows about them, they wouldn't have any reason or ability to take them from you. I'm curious how you would define ownership?
      - cool_dude85 4y ago
        This can't be a satisfying answer, otherwise you could "own" your land now, by your understanding, as long as it's done through enough overseas shell corps and so on. And still have to pay property taxes as per usual.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Imagine you decide to go 'soul searching', bought up a sizable chunk of land, packed up on goods, gave away everything else, and decided to just live off your land for a couple of years. By the time you got back to society, you'd probably find that "your" land was no longer yours. Unless you decided to stop what you were doing, go earn some USD, and give it to the government - they would seize your land. So it's really no different than rent. Incidentally this is not inherent. If tax were assessed in some way like min(5%_of_disposable_income, assessed_property_tax) then I think there'd be a much stronger argument of ownership, in spite of the fact that in the vast majority of scenarios there would be exactly 0 difference. But take our little scenario above. Just want to check out of society for a bit? You'd be absolutely free to do so, and when you came back your land would would still be your land. In fact it would never be taken from you except in some scenario where you broke the law, such as by tax evasion.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Imagine a world where there are no taxes whatsoever, incredibly however a functional government with courts and such still exists. You buy a piece of land and go soul searching for a few years and come back to find you no longer own the land. Somebody you did wrong in the past sued you and won a judgement, got a lien against your land and sold it to make himself partially whole. Would you say that you did not "own" this land, you were just renting it?
robcohen 4y ago
Seems like quite the claim. I could conceivably see the argument against federal taxes, but state taxes? There’s no right to be free from taxes enshrined in the bill of rights.
root_axis 4y ago
Why are wealth taxes unconstitutional?
- ke88y 4y ago
  Property taxes are not unconstitutional. Particularly state property taxes, which under even the most revisionist possible reading are very clearly not prohibited by the US constitution. In fact, at least one type of property tax is specifically enumerated in the constitution (Section 9)! So the notion that the founding fathers believed property taxes were unconstitutional -- while also enumerating a specific type of property tax in the constitution -- is ridiculous. IMO, if an extreme SCOTUS attempted to kill all forms of property taxes, a collective decision by legislatures and the executive to selectively ignore Marbury v Madison would be a more likely outcome than the end of property taxes. In general: the idea that the judiciary can "strike down" unconstitutional laws is much more tenuous than most of the things that fringe constitutional theories consider to be unconstitutional. I think this is where fantasies like ending property taxes or sovereign citizen stuff fall apart: if we're going to stretch the meaning of the constitution that far, then why continue putting so much unenumerated power into the judiciary? Also: taxing income without taxing property is ridiculously stupid public policy. We should be doing exactly the opposite: rewarding hard work and severely punishing lazy lay-abouts who sit around on generational properties instead of contributing to society by working and earning an income.
  - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
    Calling tariffs, what I assume you are referring too, a property tax is a bit of a stretch.
    - ke88y 4y ago
      No. Section 9 literally uses the word “tax”, and states that a "tax or duty" may be imposed, drawing an explicit distinction between "tax" and "duty" and thereby directly addressing potential misunderstandings such as yours. Section 9 VERY explicitly and VERY carefully allows for a property tax which is not a duty. Why would the framers include this clause, as written, if they believed it unconstitutional for Congress to enact property taxes? At the very least you would expect an exceptional clause if that were the case. This strains credulity, to put it mildly. State property taxes existed in the US for 100 years before and also during the constitutional convention. It strains credulity to claim that the framers intended for state property taxes to be unconstitutional while also not enumerating this fact and even specifically enumerating limits on taxation of certain types of property. Furthermore, the legislative and executive actions of constitutional convention members, within their respective commonwealths and states, clearly demonstrate that the framers did not intend to prohibit taxation of property particularly by non-federal governments (or even by the federal government, for that matter, as long as funds were equally distributed). Again, it strains credulity to claim that a framer would write a constitution intended to prevent states from taxing property, and then go serve in a state legislative assembly or executive that approved taxation based on the value of estates or properties. And we haven't even made it to the 9th amendment. Again: I'm much more willing to accept that Marbury v Madison was a mistaken interpretation of the constitution than I am to accept the US constitution can be somehow interpreted to disallow state property taxes. To be blunt, if SCOTUS tried to do something this blatantly ridiculous and made-up, most state governments and courts would simply ignore the ruling.
ghaff 4y ago
So my town has basically no commercial activity so sales/VAT/etc. is out. And while I don't know what the laws are for a local income tax, it's certainly extremely rare and, even if it could be done legally, it would be a huge transfer from working people to those who were retired, etc.
jandrese 4y ago
On the contrary in a capitalist society wealth taxes are the most moral taxes. The reason is that capitalism is inherently self reinforcing, if you have money you can make money. This causes a feedback loop that accelerates wealth upward until you end up in a feudal state. So it is the moral duty of the state to push wealth back down to keep the system from collapsing. Taxes need to be focused on passive sources of income like investments. Income that is generated by work that produced goods or services should be minimally taxed to encourage more of those activities.
cafard 4y ago
Isn't this subject to the sort of argument that Lincoln used in his Cooper Union speech? The signers and drafters of the Constitution mostly came from states that taxed property. They ruled out a federal property tax, it is true.

causi 4y ago

Are there any other possessions subject to an unlimited amount of tax? Arguably you don't own land, you just rent it from the government. However, logically speaking, you should only be paying tax based on the value of the ground and nothing else. The current scheme is rather perverse. I do work, earn income, pay income tax. Buy a house, pay transfer tax, then pay tax on it again as my property value goes up. Buy tree seedlings, pay sales tax. The same dollar is taxed for income, taxed again for sales, then taxed a third time after I plant them thereby increasing the value of my property. No wonder our society is dividing into people who own nothing and pay nothing and people who own everything and do everything they can to pay nothing.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
Automobiles, boats, airplanes, essentially most large capital assets are potentially subject to a form of property tax depending on local law.
vuln 4y ago
Vehicles. Taxes paid when purchased, taxes paid on maintenance, taxes paid on fuel, yearly personal property tax, yearly registration (tax), insurance (tax)
pydry 4y ago
I strongly doubt property taxes anywhere exceed the rental value of the land.
- causi 4y ago
  I'm just trying to live on it. I find the entire concept of using a fundamentally scarce resource like land to generate profit by being a middle-man perverse.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    It's not for profit though. Presumably there are city services involved (fire, police, emergency), civil utilities (water and sewage perhaps, electricity), and state defense. You're paying to live in that environment created by the government around that parcel, not just on that parcel.