U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-30-2017, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Rutherfordton,NC
14,101 posts, read 9,001,429 times
Reputation: 9551

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
If there were no property tax, it sets up a huge moral hazard (something ironically that Pub's love to tout when it comes to things like insurance). If you never have to pay another dime for a piece of land, you have no interest in ever selling, and that creates extra scarcity in the RE market and drives prices for land even higher.

With property tax, it is to stop the perverse incentive to hoard, and encourages the most productive use of the land possible.

Think of it as being like a deductible on health insurance


No, it's more simple then that it's set up so someone can get rich off the sweat of my back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-30-2017, 10:22 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,675 posts, read 9,591,914 times
Reputation: 9691
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
We aren't talking lack of access to some consumer good, we are talking lack of access to roads, to police, to fire protection, to indoor plumbing etc.

You aren't going to win people over with 80% knowing they will be worse off in your scenario
If people want those things the private sector can provide it.

Once government ceases to operate all the folks who know how to pave roads don't suddenly forget how to do so. They just need a private means of support to do that job...if that's what people want.

Contrary to common statist belief humans existed before involuntary States.

If you want a real mystery to ponder stick to the chicken or the egg paradigm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 10:50 AM
 
2,162 posts, read 636,413 times
Reputation: 1839
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenSJC

At least, you can make a better argument that private property is theft (as opposed to personal property - the two are NOT synonymous) than you can regarding taxation as theft.
We can pretty much chuck the entirety of the OP's argument owing to his/her misunderstanding of the legal concept of "property." This correspondent seems to think there are two types...private and personal.

But that's at least 50% wrong.

While there are, from a legal standpoint, at least two types of property, those two types are as follows:

  1. Real property (land, buildings, and anything attached thereto);
  2. Personal property (moveable goods, chattels, cash, securities, etc.)

(For simplicity, we'll omit the concept of mixed property since it is a combination of 1 and 2 above.)


Now, if real property or personal property is owned by individual(s) or other entity that is NOT some level of government, said property could be described as being "private property," i.e., not public. There is such a thing, obviously.

If real or personal property is owned by some level of government, it can be described as "public property," such as federal rangelands in the West managed by the BLM. Properties of this type are known to exist as well.

It's quite clear that the OP's little mental locomotive started out not on the rails, but a dirt road. Clearly this cannot end well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenSJC

There is no "State of Nature" of human morality that justifies private property rights or any other economic regime.
Completely incorrect. The right to pursue happiness (i.e., acquire property, whether real, personal or mixed) was recognized in the Declaration of Independence as a natural right, conferred upon man by simple virtue of being human, and not to be infringed upon by government (which did not grant said right). Further, the U.S. Constitution was adopted for the purpose of safeguarding that right, among others, from the ravages of unchecked government.

(This is the point where we ask ourselves if they teach American history or civics in the schools any more.)

At this point, of course, the OP's little mental locomotive is now creaking down the dirt road at an absurdly slow pace, except that now it's on fire, with boilers about to blow, and heading straight for the edge of the precipice dead ahead, from which it will plunge to its fiery demise. Those few who have enough snap to realize what is about to happen are jumping off this train of intellectual doom as fast as they can. Some, however, do not realize the fate that is about to befall them, and alas, they remain on the train.

Frankly, I can't watch the rest of this. It's just not going to be pretty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:23 AM
 
18,631 posts, read 9,559,201 times
Reputation: 5208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
If there were no property tax, it sets up a huge moral hazard (something ironically that Pub's love to tout when it comes to things like insurance). If you never have to pay another dime for a piece of land, you have no interest in ever selling, and that creates extra scarcity in the RE market and drives prices for land even higher.

With property tax, it is to stop the perverse incentive to hoard, and encourages the most productive use of the land possible.

Think of it as being like a deductible on health insurance
How is that remotely possible?

What's the benefit to the land owner just to horde land?


Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Think of it as being like a deductible on health insurance
Talking about false analogies. Deductible on health insurance is voluntary while property tax is paid under coercion or the point of gun.

It's like saying voluntary work is same as slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,745 posts, read 6,770,169 times
Reputation: 5760
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
If people want those things the private sector can provide it.

Once government ceases to operate all the folks who know how to pave roads don't suddenly forget how to do so. They just need a private means of support to do that job...if that's what people want.

Contrary to common statist belief humans existed before involuntary States.

If you want a real mystery to ponder stick to the chicken or the egg paradigm.
But again, with the private sector, everyone has to pay the same $ amount, which is regressive, and will lower the standard of living for 80% of the population, therefore will never happen
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,570 posts, read 5,471,842 times
Reputation: 5309
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Depends on the type of taxation. Some taxes are not theft but armed robbery.

Income, property and estate taxes are armed robbery.

Consumption tax or sales tax are good and fair.
Income, property, and estate taxes exist to protect Democracy. Without those taxes, a small number of individuals would become incredibly wealthy and buy the government.

Sales taxes are highly regressive because the poor have to spend most (or all) of their income just to survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,745 posts, read 6,770,169 times
Reputation: 5760
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
How is that remotely possible?

What's the benefit to the land owner just to horde land?




Talking about false analogies. Deductible on health insurance is voluntary while property tax is paid under coercion or the point of gun.

It's like saying voluntary work is same as slavery.
It's of the benefit of a home owner that once they've paid their house in full, could just literally do nothing for the rest of their lives provided they had enough money for food. So that person could simply stop working, and they would not only no longer be contributing to the economy, but by just sitting on their property with no incentive to sell, would cause a rise in housing prices
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:37 AM
 
18,631 posts, read 9,559,201 times
Reputation: 5208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
We aren't talking lack of access to some consumer good, we are talking lack of access to roads, to police, to fire protection, to indoor plumbing etc.

You aren't going to win people over with 80% knowing they will be worse off in your scenario
None of these requires the current government.

The government's role is to enforce the law and protect our rights.

Roads, fire protection or indoor plumbing are not government's job - I shouldn't pay for your indoor plumbing and certainly should not be forced at the gunpoint to pay for it.

The moral or lack of it is astonishing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:39 AM
 
18,631 posts, read 9,559,201 times
Reputation: 5208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
It's of the benefit of a home owner that once they've paid their house in full, could just literally do nothing for the rest of their lives provided they had enough money for food. So that person could simply stop working, and they would not only no longer be contributing to the economy, but by just sitting on their property with no incentive to sell, would cause a rise in housing prices
Gee, you don't seem to be concerned at with welfare recipients who live in the taxpayers funded housing, pop out kids for the taxpayers to raise and commit crimes at the same time.

Somehow you want to mess with people who have paid everything on their own?

What's wrong with you, seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2017, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
4,799 posts, read 1,621,434 times
Reputation: 1052
Hmmm...do I even want to get involved in this thread? Looks like a lot of the same.

Theft/Robbery/Extortion hinges on consent. If the person's property is taken from them without their consent, it's one of those things. That doesn't change just because it's the government or a majority group doing it, and no, you don't consent simply by not moving.

To address the OP, yes, it is a moral principle. Even ignoring the philosophy behind property rights, or rights in general, we (or at least I and one or two others here) support universal application of moral standards. So for example, IF you believe it's wrong for one person to take another's wallet without their consent, as we do, then that applies to any person or group. No selectively applying moral standards to some and not others.

Also, how are you distinguishing personal and private property?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top