> the government is competing against you for property using your own money Unless you somehow have an income source that doesn't rely on any taxpayer funded i

> the government is competing against you for property using your own money Unless you somehow have an income source that doesn't rely on any taxpayer funded infrastructure whatsoever, it's a bit disingenuous to call it 'your own money'. As an example, if your city pays for a big new park on your block and this increases the value of your property, is that increase really yours? The whole issue of taxation is so much more complicated than '100% of my income is mine and any tax is essentially theft'. Much better to argue about taxation in terms of fairness in my opinion. In terms of fairness, property owners do much better out of the whole equation than it might first seem as every public improvement amounts to a tax refund in the form of increased property value. The poor might get obvious refunds or entitlements, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are not equivalent. In the above circumstance, the people with the most legitimate gripe are people paying a decent amount of income tax while owning no property and so missing out on both types of 'refund'.