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.
You can always demolish your property, so that its just land then you would pay considerably less taxes, also dont live in it.
Not always true. In my case the land itself is valued at multiple times over the dwelling structure built upon it. It's the tax on the land that costs so much.
It is true that any endowed right is meaningless if not defended. But that defense is not restricted nor limited to a group.
Mutual defense of rights is wise - weak individuals become a potent force when united. [See: Roman Fasces, a bundle of rods that symbolized the awesome power of unity]
Pursuant to the Declaration, governments are instituted among men to secure those endowed rights.
In America's case, the rights are not grants from government, but their protection is the prime reason for government.
However, those who consent to be governed waive their endowment, and change their relationship with government.
Since most Americans have unwittingly consented, and thus waived their endowment, they cannot exercise natural rights, natural liberty, personal liberty, nor absolute ownership. And many replies herein illustrate that condition.
And yet the law and legal references all show that such endowments did exist, do exist and shall exist in those who have the status at law to exercise them.
And if ever a substantial number of Americans read their own laws, and decided to withdraw consent, the PDSRA* would collapse overnight from the loss of subjects to rule and tax.
*People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of America
This post does not make any sense, you are either in the bundle of sticks or you are a barbarian to be snuffed out. These ideas you suggest are mutually exclusive, you dont get to cherry pick which legislation you want to follow regardless of what rights you think you havent waived.
By having US citizenship and a US passport you are in the bundle protected by the military/police and are also subject to the laws that the majority indirectly pass.
If everyone withdrew over night the US would cease to exist and we would eventually be over ran. Wars are not fought with farmers who go dust off their muskets anymore. You would likely also have a massive civil war at the same time the nation was falling apart because the only thing that keeps the angry majority from killing the elietes is the police state. We have a drastic number of poor people that are diliberatly kept poor because a few have the means to buy up all the prime real estate and all that is left for everyone else is non irrigatable dustbowl lands.
The twine that holds the sticks that is the USA together is falling apart, WAY to much inequality and to many sympathizers who will contend to their dying breath that its not a 0 sum game. When a house in Denver is 400k for a dump .... its a 0 sum game.
It does not matter what the words are someone types out on a screen, when I go to apply for jobs in a given area and start looking at the real estate prices in said area that is where the rubber meets the road.
IDEOLOGICAL THIEVES
=\\=\\=\\=\\=\\=
A popular mantra among the Left Wing is that NO ONE CAN OWN LAND.
That is completely wrong.
Without absolute ownership and the right to exclude others, there is nothing to stop predation and vandalism.
Without the "right to own" the farmer has no "right" to exclude the herdsman from trampling his crops with his herd. The herdsman has no "right" to prevent hunters from killing and taking his animals. All that remains are primitive hunter - gatherers in perpetual conflict over the planet "nobody can own."
Ownership and exclusion are vital to civilization.
No piece of land can simultaneously be used for shelter, grazing, farming, hunting, gathering, wildlife, and / or transportation.
The REAL GOAL of the Left Wing is to persuade the owners to surrender ownership to the collectivist STATE, so it can rule the (m)asses.
Do not fall for it. Defend absolute ownership of private property, for if you can’t absolutely own yourself, your labor, and the fruits of that labor, who does own you and yours?
(You have no right to life, if you have no land upon which to live! All you have is a privilege, subject to the landlord. And your progeny will have no nation to live within, when others take the land for their own posterity.)
An entire strawman thread. Neat.
Nope, super liberal here. None of what you said is widely true. But good job with running with that logical fallacy to its ridiculous conclusion.
So... when anyone sells their property (e.g., home), they shouldn't get the full sale price paid (minus expenses) because that value exists due to OTHERS' efforts? Where does that happen? Give us some examples.
Any time someone holds (in alot of cases inherits) land that has been sitting idle. Then stuff starts developing around said land .... the owner holds out, sitting on the land .... more little shops and roads are built, pretty soon there are a few 10+ story buildings ..... the owner holds out
Pretty soon the land is worth millions because now it sits in the middle of a thriving area. The owner finally sells, having had to do nothing (or very little) other than hold the land.
So when the govt uses eminite domain to take said property for a cheap price I dont feel bad. They are obstructionists and they know exactly what they are doing.
Lets say 10 people need to sell out so that an airport needs to be built, 9 sell out the other holds out (wanting obscene amounts of money because they know what is about to be built, but its just raw land right now). They are not going to toil like slaves for the next 5-10 years to develop this airport, they just want a ton of money for nothing. No way, govt should take the land for what they paid for it and if it was inherited agriculture land value. If there is a structure then the structure value.
But this whole idea of getting a big pay day on raw land just because you sat on it is a bad thing in our society, it stifles development and entrepreneurship because now the cost of entry is to steep so people just don't set up shop.
Not always true. In my case the land itself is valued at multiple times over the dwelling structure built upon it. It's the tax on the land that costs so much.
Land taxes are to disincentivize land speculation and holding land in hopes that someone else will build up an area and make you rich.
I own raw land I dont like the taxes and I will play the game until the rules change, but I think the rules are wrong.
Any time someone holds (in alot of cases inherits) land that has been sitting idle. Then stuff starts developing around said land .... the owner holds out, sitting on the land .... more little shops and roads are built, pretty soon there are a few 10+ story buildings ..... the owner holds out
Pretty soon the land is worth millions because now it sits in the middle of a thriving area. The owner finally sells, having had to do nothing (or very little) other than hold the land.
So when the govt uses eminite domain to take said property for a cheap price I dont feel bad. They are obstructionists and they know exactly what they are doing.
Lets say 10 people need to sell out so that an airport needs to be built, 9 sell out the other holds out (wanting obscene amounts of money because they know what is about to be built, but its just raw land right now). They are not going to toil like slaves for the next 5-10 years to develop this airport, they just want a ton of money for nothing. No way, govt should take the land for what they paid for it and if it was inherited agriculture land value. If there is a structure then the structure value.
But this whole idea of getting a big pay day on raw land just because you sat on it is a bad thing in our society, it stifles development and entrepreneurship because now the cost of entry is to steep so people just don't set up shop.
So you are saying that if your home value rises to say $300,000 from the $200,000 you paid for it, that you should sell it to the new owner for $200,000? You didn't do anything to increase the value other than sit there. The general marketplace and economy caused the value to rise, not you.
Land that govt wants to develop may have similarly risen in value since it was bought. When govt exercises eminent domain they are expected to pay the then existing market value. That value can be established in court if it has to, but in the end they will get paid market value.
The issues surrounding land wont apply to peoples private residences, it applies to the land value itself (which often times dwarfs the value of the building. Price fixing the value of the land itself could be in the future.
An example might be if you have a modest single family home on 5 acres in a rapidly developing area. Jobs come in people move there and you wait as others build things so you can capitalize on other peoples labor.
Then the govt comes in and uses eminent domain to rip your house down and put up apartments and pays you the house value plus agricultural value of the land. People being able to extract excess value from the amenities that built up around you is the issue at hand.
It will be a delicate issue because what is someone bought in high, perhaps the govt can go back and put a lien on the past owners estate to recover funds?
What you are missing is the homeowners have been paying tax on the market value of that 5 acres, not the agricultural value. Why would it be OK for govt under eminent domain to then pay only agricultural value when they want to take the land?
What you are missing is the homeowners have been paying tax on the market value of that 5 acres, not the agricultural value. Why would it be OK for govt under eminent domain to then pay only agricultural value when they want to take the land?
Because you can do what you want when you're the government.
pittsflyer, I went back and read a few more of your posts on this thread. You seem to think that people don't improve the value of land by their own actions. Maybe, maybe not, but even if not, land as an investment is no different than investing in anything else.
Some of us do directly improve the value though. I have 26 acres and have very much improved the value of the land itself. I took a fixer upper house and completely renovated it. The land it sits on rose as the ugly duckling house became one of the nicer homes in the area. More directly I cleaned up the property itself, a very time intensive and expensive undertaking. Amongst other things I cleared away the growth and debris that completely hid about 1,000 feet of old stone wall along the road, rebuilding segments that had tumbled down these past couple centuries. I painstakingly removed an old overgrown farm fence that separated the lawn from a hay field, opening up the view. Old overgrown and weed choked perennial flower beds were restored and landscaping by the house was torn out and redone. I have made my land more valuable by transforming it into a thing of beauty.
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.
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.
