3 ms·

I believe you're creating a distinction that doesn't exist. What is the difference, in your mind, between a hammer or other object being seized by authorities a

I believe you're creating a distinction that doesn't exist. What is the difference, in your mind, between a hammer or other object being seized by authorities and a piece of real estate being seized by authorities? Your perspective seems very specific to California's tax structure. I wonder how you incorporate "use tax" into your theories.

rdtsc 13y ago
> What is the difference, in your mind, between a hammer or other object being seized by authorities and a piece of real estate being seized by authorities? The distinction is that to seize my hammer they would have to turn violent, attack, assault or threaten. In that whoever did this would basically expose what is really at the heart of the issue. With land there is a legal framework to disguise pretty much the same thing but using "ownership" language. In reality, to me it seems, it is not much different or not much different from land owners in medieval times giving land to their subjects. > Your perspective seems very specific to California's tax structure. I think it pertains to most states in this country. I don't know of many states that don't charge property taxes. Most countries have something similar. In Great Britain (from what I understand from marginal discussions I've had) this is more obvious. All land belongs to the Crown and it doles it out to tenants who dole it out to sub-tenants and so on. These are often Lords and Ladies from medieval times and their heirs still collect "taxes" based on that ownership.
- throwaway092834 13y ago
  The exact same force is used in seizing a hammer or other object as in seizing a house. In both cases law enforcement will eventually arrest you, put handcuffs on you and take you to jail if you do not comply. I mentioned the use tax, and that California does not have one. Do you know what a use tax is?

rdtsc 13y ago

> What is the difference, in your mind, between a hammer or other object being seized by authorities and a piece of real estate being seized by authorities? The distinction is that to seize my hammer they would have to turn violent, attack, assault or threaten. In that whoever did this would basically expose what is really at the heart of the issue. With land there is a legal framework to disguise pretty much the same thing but using "ownership" language. In reality, to me it seems, it is not much different or not much different from land owners in medieval times giving land to their subjects. > Your perspective seems very specific to California's tax structure. I think it pertains to most states in this country. I don't know of many states that don't charge property taxes. Most countries have something similar. In Great Britain (from what I understand from marginal discussions I've had) this is more obvious. All land belongs to the Crown and it doles it out to tenants who dole it out to sub-tenants and so on. These are often Lords and Ladies from medieval times and their heirs still collect "taxes" based on that ownership.

throwaway092834 13y ago
The exact same force is used in seizing a hammer or other object as in seizing a house. In both cases law enforcement will eventually arrest you, put handcuffs on you and take you to jail if you do not comply. I mentioned the use tax, and that California does not have one. Do you know what a use tax is?