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.
...
- A person has one kid in school, another has three kids in school; who is using more services? Yet the person paying is paying based on the value of their home, not use of services.
- Two people drive the same distance to work, yet one person pays more in property taxes than the other; how is this "paying your fair share" when the services used, that is the local roads, the same?
....
Taxes are almost universally assessed based on real or perceived capacity to pay, and not on usage of services. Part of my taxes goes to towards maintaining public parks, regardless of whether I picnic there weekly, or couldn't even find them on the map. Part of my taxes go towards the public schools, regardless of whether I have a brood of kids in school, or if they're all in private school, or home-schooled, or if I'm child-free. Part of my taxes go to maintaining the police, regardless of whether I'm a habitual 911-caller or whether the only time that I interact with the police is when I'm pulled over for a speeding-ticket. The entire premise behind taxes is that the payment is completely divorced from the usage. Those who can afford more, subsidize those who use more. That is the "penalty" for living in what's termed a civilized world.
In essence, taxes resemble the parable of the prodigal son; I refer to the other son, who dutifully remained at home. He gets penalized for the largesse of the prodigal son, for if the latter receives more, the former must receive less, despite being more responsible and arguably more worthy. This really can't be helped, unless the father in the parable quite literally treats the returning prodigal son as a slave, or refuses to acknowledge him entirely. This would be fairer in terms of the other son's interests, but again, no society that we term "civilized" works that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
But the answer is probably to elect new government officials. That is the beauty of local government.
Not really. In a small jurisdiction, a vocal cohort of activists can control the public discourse and subvert majority will. At the national level, this is far more difficult to do. Needless to say, I support a national property tax and a national sales tax, with abolition of state and local taxes. Another common situation is a small town surrounded by vast rural expanses. The entire area (rural + town) pays the same property tax rate, but the townsfolk reap more benefits (and often have lower property assessment). The rural denizens have little recourse, since they're going to be outvoted by the townspeople.
Property tax turns us all into tenets of the government liable to pay what effectively amounts to rent on pain of eviction, which amounts to government taking ownership of your land and your home, a theft of a vastly higher order than any other form of taxation. It's also has no correlation with ability to pay, so it effectively forces people to constantly generate money if they wish to live, putting us all on a treadmill not unlike the serfs of yore, and it's the poor that suffer the most. A poor and/or elderly person can live comfortably and/or save money on very little income if they own their home free and clear, but when property tax is imposed they are at best impoverished and at worst rendered a homeless welfare dependent.
Also, I would question the fairness and the notion that property taxes are part of everyone contributing. If everyone benefits so much why not impose a tax that the broadest possible section of the population pays directly throughout the course of their activities? Why should property owners bear a special burden that the rest don't, at least directly? It's not as if these people think government only provides services to homeowners. Taxing transactions or transfers is based on ability to pay, since if they couldn't pay they wouldn't transact, and almost everyone engages in such activities.
Property tax is levied against hermits in the woods, too, even those who do not want the protection or services of the government, so that's hardly an option. Perhaps if your ilk did leave those who do not want the protection or services of government alone this thread wouldn't exist, but that is not what governments are doing.
You do know property tax isn't the only kind of tax, don't you? One revenue stream is as good as any other for paying for things, so there's nothing special about property taxation. Property tax is completely unnecessary, considering that there are other ways to get as much revenue that are not nearly as invasive as property tax and that are based upon ability to pay. Ergo, imposing property tax amounts to cruelty by the government, cruelty that hurts those with the least ability to pay most of all. Sales tax and income tax present themselves as obvious alternatives, and they obviously can fund "organized services and organized government", considering that they're doing just that at this moment.
In fact many boroughs in Alaska, which unlike the unorganized borough are county-equivalents in every respect, don't levy any property tax and yet they are obviously organized governments that provide services. Plenty of Alaskans don't have to pay any property tax. The bulk of their people are also obviously part of a civilized society. So what is your problem with not levying property tax? I can't find anything wrong with the idea.
And this is why the fairest tax of them all is the sales tax.
INCOME TAX IS WORSE THAN SALES TAX BTW.
taxing productivity in general is bad.
Property tax? well then the land was never yours to begin with, with eminent domain laws and all.
I have already given up property tax. the government simply owns all the land in reality.
but in this case property tax would be the lesser evil compared to income tax.
only sales tax would be fairer gain although it is still bad as all taxes are.
this is why if property tax is done correctly then it will be less of an evil then.
for me I already said I can accept it if they
tax property based on usage
each 10 years the census does their population count
so we can get a landarea/population to determine how many sq feet each person gets tax free per city/location etc.
and if you live/own things BEYOND SOCIETIES MEANS then you pay more.
the one that would generate the least amount of taxes would be if everyone owned a small home equal to everyone else then.
more population in one area means more taxes generated when one person lives over a certain sq foot.
because they consume more.
Rich people will live on the most land per person as a result they will usually be taxed much more than a poor person that lives in a tiny home
the rich also have more valuable assets to be protected by the police as a result will need the protection more than a poor person on the street.
as we all know the police usually favor the rich more than a poor person. it's common sense
this should protect those that are on fixed incomes that cannot pay much if any tax.
and it should reflect the total value of the property and structure on the market not just what the government assessor says it is worth as we well know gov knows jack squat and the assessors too are bogus.
0-1% if you live in it and under the sq foot of land.
for every 10% it is vacant such as apartments then you pay 1% extra.
take extra 10% sq foot over the national limit = 1% extra tax
take extra 20% sq foot over the national limit = 2% extra tax
etc
for rental properties and commercial real estate.
in my system
tax would be levied based on how much it would be used.
more vacancies = more taxes
if you leave it vacant it is more dangerous and cost to society is greater-eg fire hazard, loitering by criminals,gang hideouts
vacant per 10% = 1% extra tax
vacant 20% = 2% tax
vacant 30% = 3% tax
this way will curb speculation and keep resources to actually build real assets.
all the construction resources are wasted building useless commercial real estate property
while not building CHEAP residential
or infrastructure-eg cheap but high quality(bang per buck not just cheapest) fiber optic lines/roads/train/rails
if you want to have lots of sq foot? then you will have to birth lots of American citizens.
note: illegal immigrants will not get this tax break only tax breaks are for AMERICAN CITIZENS.
if they want to be part of us they need to work hard and then later can be one of us.
In a way my proposal is just a form of sales tax on property because it is paid based on usage of said land
my proposal should be much more efficient and reasonable compared to the stupid tax laws, property laws, property fees etc we have now
so over time my plan is much more sustainable and it will not centralize the land to a few humans at the top.
and if they do then they would actually have to be competitive if they want to fill the vacancies up.
this will keep prices in check and taxes would be actually reasonable instead of stupidly insane for 99% of the people.
The township were I live, Galloway Township, NJ recently had all the the property reassessed because too many people were complaining about there assessed value of there houses and were filing tax assessment appeals. My assessed value of my house dropped 21%, but the Municipal tax rate just increased by 30%, Residents are outraged by this tax increase, are people really this stupid? Please read my simplified explanation below.
If your house is assessed at 100k and the tax rate is 50 cents on $100 assessed value, do they honestly believe if everyone gets there house reassessed and now there house is assessed at 50k, there tax rate will remain at 50 cents on $100 assessed value? The Municipal Budget didn't magically get cut in half, it costs the same to run the township as before, so the tax rate will just increase to $1 on $100 assessed value to make up for the decease of township wide value of properties. Actually it will be even higher because of all the tax assessment appeals, the township has to hire someone to go through all those appeals, they are just making there taxes even higher by appealing.
Really the only way to get a lower tax bill is if YOUR house is assessed at a lower value and your neighbors are not, but then your not paying your fair share. It boggles my mind people can't understand this basic concept.
Property tax turns us all into tenets of the government liable to pay what effectively amounts to rent on pain of eviction, which amounts to government taking ownership of your land and your home, a theft of a vastly higher order than any other form of taxation. It's also has no correlation with ability to pay, so it effectively forces people to constantly generate money if they wish to live, putting us all on a treadmill not unlike the serfs of yore, and it's the poor that suffer the most. A poor and/or elderly person can live comfortably and/or save money on very little income if they own their home free and clear, but when property tax is imposed they are at best impoverished and at worst rendered a homeless welfare dependent.
Oh and what would you call a private land lord that ends up owning the entire state, only now you have no vote. So what you are really saying is you don't like people having the power to vote? Nearly everyone will be a tenet one way or another, either to a democratic government or to private land lords. Only thousands of years of history have told me this.
Quote:
Also, I would question the fairness and the notion that property taxes are part of everyone contributing. If everyone benefits so much why not impose a tax that the broadest possible section of the population pays directly throughout the course of their activities? Why should property owners bear a special burden that the rest don't, at least directly? It's not as if these people think government only provides services to homeowners. Taxing transactions or transfers is based on ability to pay, since if they couldn't pay they wouldn't transact, and almost everyone engages in such activities.
Good Marxist policy there from each according to his means and to each according to their needs. How about you found the America Bolshevik party?
Quote:
Property tax is levied against hermits in the woods, too, even those who do not want the protection or services of the government, so that's hardly an option. Perhaps if your ilk did leave those who do not want the protection or services of government alone this thread wouldn't exist, but that is not what governments are doing.
Wrong. A land value tax does not because such land has no market value. However if he sells a wild berry, you and your Bolshevik, NKVD, jack booted buddies will tax him for his skin tax. You tax the the hermit in the woods. If I sold a jar a pickles on the moon, your system would tax me.
Quote:
You do know property tax isn't the only kind of tax, don't you? One revenue stream is as good as any other for paying for things, so there's nothing special about property taxation. Property tax is completely unnecessary, considering that there are other ways to get as much revenue that are not nearly as invasive as property tax and that are based upon ability to pay. Ergo, imposing property tax amounts to cruelty by the government, cruelty that hurts those with the least ability to pay most of all. Sales tax and income tax present themselves as obvious alternatives, and they obviously can fund "organized services and organized government", considering that they're doing just that at this moment.
There are lots of ways, including mugging people, to raise revenue, very similar to the precepts of your Bolshevik American party. How about charing rent? Does that amount to cruelty given that its a property tax?
Quote:
In fact many boroughs in Alaska, which unlike the unorganized borough are county-equivalents in every respect, don't levy any property tax and yet they are obviously organized governments that provide services. Plenty of Alaskans don't have to pay any property tax. The bulk of their people are also obviously part of a civilized society. So what is your problem with not levying property tax? I can't find anything wrong with the idea.
What is the value of that land? Is Alaska a hot market like SF? Of course real estate taxes don't work there. That is why taxes need to be based on raw land values and user fees. A land value tax on cheap or worthless land is a very bad idea. However the government provides little value in its regulation because its free. Thus user fees is the only reasonable tax.
Who stops you from leaving the US to evade property tax or not owning property here? - There are many areas without property tax like Somalia for example. If you don't need government services this seems to be an ideal place for you as there is no effective government at all pestering you with its services. How about you update us with a blog on your experiences there?
Malta, Liechtenstein, Monaco all have no property taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Bishop
That's an absurd analysis. Strong schools support strong economies and solid property values. Those benefit everyone. The narrow interest of having a child in a particular public school system is hardly necessary for one to support strong schools and millions are wise enough to realize that.
There's no correlation between dumping money in districts and them being good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Bishop
Your opinion here being based on what exactly??? I'm guessing more or less nothing at all.
Not opinion. Your counter "arguments" are weak. There have been a multitude of studies that show increased public education spending doesn't lead to increased performance. You failed to quote the most important piece, the ratio of teachers/non-teaching personal has switched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver
I had to chuckle at the whole "fair share". In Florida they had the Homestead act which significantly lowered your annual property taxes. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it was significant. Also, in the homestead act was that your property taxes could not increase by more than 3% year after year. So, you had people living in their houses for 20 years paying 500 bucks a year on a house with a value of 400K, but then someone living across the street who just recently bought for 250K is paying 5 grand in taxes per year. Taxes are anything but fair.
While it lacks keeping up with costs, that is a fairer system.
A family that's lived on a property for decades shouldn't be forced out because of tax increases. I've seen multiple communities that have a lot of out of state vacationers start picking up properties, and before long the locals are having to sell out because of "valuation" increases.
At the end of the day, I advocate something closer to a per person tax instead of property tax. I'm single paying $5,000 a year in property tax, neighbor is married with 3 kids and pays the same thing. I'm paying $5000 per person, he's paying $1000 per person.
Good Marxist policy there from each according to his means and to each according to their needs.
While Marx did help popularize this notion in the late 19th century, he borrowed it from one Jesus of Nazareth. He was not the first person to come up with the idea either.
And this is why the fairest tax of them all is the sales tax.
There is no such thing as "The Sales Tax". There are of course many different schemes of taxation that are imposed at a final point-of-sale, but the "fairness" of any of them cannot be assumed, but rather must be established. Attempts at that are likely to reveal that these schemes are rather persistently problematic with respect to the usual measures and definitions of tax equity.
There's no correlation between dumping money in districts and them being good.
Really? None? It would be common then for very low-spending districts to perform as well as high-spending districts? The ability to attract or acquire first-rate educational resources does not impact on performance in your world? At all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Not opinion.
LOL! Nothing BUT opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Your counter "arguments" are weak.
They are stronger than yours merely for existing. Where for instance are these invisible analyses that allow you to proclaim that "many school districts can have their budgets slashed 30+ % and student performance will stay the same/increase"? Nowhere. That's where they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
There have been a multitude of studies that show increased public education spending doesn't lead to increased performance.
No, you have merely misunderstood the results of studies examining the relationship between school spending and performance. You may well have had assistance from various dishonest partisans in coming to such misunderstandings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
You failed to quote the most important piece, the ratio of teachers/non-teaching personal has switched.
LOL! Why don't you go back another 50 years to the days of the one-room schoolhouse. Hardly any bureaucratic overlay back then at all. What a great education kids got back in those days. A better idera of course would simply be to put down the poison-pen propaganda screeds of virulent school-voucher, sectarian, and home-schooling militants and try learning more about and then actually dealing with the real world.
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.
