4 ms·

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.

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.
      - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
        To clarify, I was talking about something like a photograph that you carry with you, little knick knacks like that. As for land, if you could actually hide the physical body of land from people, then sure, it could sort of apply there. I don't think I meant "hiding" by legal means though. I mean if nobody can physically see it or look it up in a database to know it exists. Realistically, we mostly don't own anything by my definition. Does that mean my definition is wrong? In any case, I'm not claiming that my understanding is correct, just that people have different understandings and mine happens to be what I mentioned above. I'm still curious about yours.
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?

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.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      To clarify, I was talking about something like a photograph that you carry with you, little knick knacks like that. As for land, if you could actually hide the physical body of land from people, then sure, it could sort of apply there. I don't think I meant "hiding" by legal means though. I mean if nobody can physically see it or look it up in a database to know it exists. Realistically, we mostly don't own anything by my definition. Does that mean my definition is wrong? In any case, I'm not claiming that my understanding is correct, just that people have different understandings and mine happens to be what I mentioned above. I'm still curious about yours.

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?