4 ms·
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 spe
by 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 agoAutomobiles, boats, airplanes, essentially most large capital assets are potentially subject to a form of property tax depending on local law.
- vuln 4y agoVehicles. Taxes paid when purchased, taxes paid on maintenance, taxes paid on fuel, yearly personal property tax, yearly registration (tax), insurance (tax)
- pydry 4y agoI strongly doubt property taxes anywhere exceed the rental value of the land.
- causi 4y agoI'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 agoIt'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.
- causi 4y agoI'm saying buying land to rent it out instead of living on it is perverse.
- czl 4y ago> Arguably you don't own land, ... Keeping X requires constant resources to defend X that scale with the value of X due to competition for X. Governments (among other things) are for collective security and efficient defence of your X. Thus by ongoing support of your ownership of X a government grants you an ongoing service which you pay for via taxes. Without a state you must directly pay costs / use resources to prevent someone else who wants your X from taking it. In nature ownership does not exist. Any being that is able to can consume what they are able from another. In nature energy is constantly spent on this for yourself and trying to prevent this happening to yourself. Governments evolve for mutual benefit of their constituents much like multicellular organisms evolve for mutual benefit of their constituent cells . > 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. Notice in your body certain cells seem to get a better deal than others? Why is that? Could it be objective proof that collectives that treat members equally are by evolutionary competition not as viable and those that do not? Yes! The evolutionary stable strategy seems to be to grant benefits to constituents just better than their next best viable option. This of course is only necessary but not sufficient.