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.
Not really though. Our sales tax does not include things that ARE necessary to live such as clothes and food. It DOES include restaurants (you guys have a meal tax too), TVS, radios and other unnecessary items. Taxing someone extra because of their view IS taxing their right to live.
Not really though. Our sales tax does not include things that ARE necessary to live such as clothes and food. It DOES include restaurants (you guys have a meal tax too), TVS, radios and other unnecessary items. Taxing someone extra because of their view IS taxing their right to live.
Examine your statement. Our betters decide what we must pay a fee to purchase and what we will be allowed to buy dispensing with that fee? Aren't they just too kind?
I'm not defending the view tax. I object strenuously to any tax and there are many more taxes that aren't called taxes. To clarify your statement, a view tax is taxing people's right to live where they want to live on the property that they paid for. Nevertheless, consider the perniciousness of consumption taxes: If taxes are used, among other things, to punish certain behaviors (an insane idea for revenue raising, BTW), and people prefer to avoid or reduce doing what is taxed, taxing consumption is an economically terrifying prospect with more devastating consequences than increasing property taxation by someone's perspective on what constitutes a view.
All taxation is theft. Life is not dependent on a view, but as with a view, a variety of sales supply life other than food (MA restaurant meals collect tax) and clothing (over $175 in MA & if you think that's a lot for a clothing article, you have forgotten about the inflated value of the dollar), which, while not necessary, deal with quality of life, too.
The core of this argument is not the Tax Rate but the Value Assessment. AFAIK any property owner can appeal to the Town Assessor's Office the value of their property. The subjective nature of this assessment is only one of the reasons I object to property taxes.
Examine your statement. Our betters decide what we must pay a fee to purchase and what we will be allowed to buy dispensing with that fee? Aren't they just too kind?
I'm not defending the view tax. I object strenuously to any tax and there are many more taxes that aren't called taxes. To clarify your statement, a view tax is taxing people's right to live where they want to live on the property that they paid for. Nevertheless, consider the perniciousness of consumption taxes: If taxes are used, among other things, to punish certain behaviors (an insane idea for revenue raising, BTW), and people prefer to avoid or reduce doing what is taxed, taxing consumption is an economically terrifying prospect with more devastating consequences than increasing property taxation by someone's perspective on what constitutes a view.
All taxation is theft. Life is not dependent on a view, but as with a view, a variety of sales supply life other than food (MA restaurant meals collect tax) and clothing (over $175 in MA & if you think that's a lot for a clothing article, you have forgotten about the inflated value of the dollar), which, while not necessary, deal with quality of life, too.
All taxation is theft? I'm not fan of paying high taxes either, but I do like police, firefighters, roads, public transit, interstates, the military, libraries, public schools and pollution controls.
The core of this argument is not the Tax Rate but the Value Assessment. AFAIK any property owner can appeal to the Town Assessor's Office the value of their property. The subjective nature of this assessment is only one of the reasons I object to property taxes.
Good point. I agree that assessments are too subjective. Of course the assessor might argue that the evaluation is in accord with the neighborhood, but that's little more than cascading inflated opinions.
I like the idea of using a (small) percentage of the property's current owner's buy price. This way an increase only comes -- if at all -- to the new owner based on a known percentage of a known price. One could argue for the tax collector adjusting for inflation, but inflation numbers are also unreliable. (One could base inflation on the exchange rate for gold.) Better for the tax collector to accept the regular, reliable amount and receive the increase (or decrease) according to the market price when the property sells. To get this kind of approach requires the community involved with the tax collecting agency to modify the taxing format.
All taxation is theft? I'm not fan of paying high taxes either, but I do like police, firefighters, roads, public transit, interstates, the military, libraries, public schools and pollution controls.
Yes, all taxation is theft. Do you have a choice to pay or not as you have a choice to pay for a product or service? No. Your choice is to pay or to lose your freedom. That's a Hobson's Choice. When property is taken from you -- whether in money form or otherwise -- without your voluntary, profitable choice in the transaction, the taking is theft.
Not one of those services you name -- and others not named here -- is a service that you voluntarily fund. They're funded by everybody's taxes. If you were interested in having those services, why not pay for them directly? Why not contract with a service for security, fire, transit, education? Without the government monopoly on these services there would be competition for providing them and pricing according to the level and quality of service. With such monopolies in place, nobody else can afford to compete. That's the nature of a monopoly.
Roads? Maintained by the property owners. Schools? Provided as a business. Lending libraries? Provided by the owners of the books. Pollution controls? Don't buy products from the companies you dislike and, if enough others agree with you, the companies dry up. None of these require government monopoly.
Civilization tried private fire companies. Emperor Nero owned one and it let the city burn down. Not such a great idea. The thought of a private police service is simply frightening. We call that The Mob. Some services are natural monopolies and private business should never be allowed, even if heavily regulated, to be a monopoly. Natural monopolies should be publically owned and operated.
My home was reassessed at a lower value recently and my tax bill was lowered accordingly. I think the “View Tax” is an assessment problem not a tax problem.
My home was reassessed at a lower value recently and my tax bill was lowered accordingly. I think the “View Tax” is an assessment problem not a tax problem.
as I understand it, the 'view tax' is the same as any other assessment on whether your home is more attractive in your town than another home. ie: if you live in town center, close to shops and schools, you will likely have a higher assessment than someone who lives on the edge of town (location location location). likewise if you live on the edge of a pond/lake or have a particularly stunning view that others in town don't have, it's again a location that is 'better' than elsewhere and assessed accordingly. Mind you, I don't like that views are being lumped in with waterfront or downtown, but I understand the thinking. I heard of one family who all had the same lovely view of some mountains as the entire town who fought their assessment and won because it was no different than any other place in town!
Civilization tried private fire companies. Emperor Nero owned one and it let the city burn down. Not such a great idea. The thought of a private police service is simply frightening. We call that The Mob. Some services are natural monopolies and private business should never be allowed, even if heavily regulated, to be a monopoly. Natural monopolies should be publically owned and operated.
My home was reassessed at a lower value recently and my tax bill was lowered accordingly. I think the “View Tax” is an assessment problem not a tax problem.
Oh, GregW, you are so funny: ignoring facts and creating fantasy to prop up your assertions. My first thought on this was remembering that I had read around age 5 or 6 that Ben Franklin started a fire fighting company. Maybe you've read about that. A quick look showed a research paper, http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_3/3_3_6.pdf, that outlines the history of fire fighting organizations in England and America. You may notice in reading it that they started out as volunteer and private organizations, developed through insurance companies, then the insurance companies eventually went rent-seeking when government stepped in to take it over, removing the market incentive. Notice also that, in America, that changed the most after the "Civil War," which made the most lasting changes from our country's federalism to our centralization.
As for your assertion about mobs, you have a definition problem. By definition, an organized group, whether public or private, is not a mob. Many organizations can and do perform great services and do not need government support to do those services. Are you worried about training? How is it that you think only government entities can guarantee high-quality training when there is so much contrary evidence?
Finally, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. That is a well and widely debunked myth. The only monopolies that can exist are those propped up by government support. Plenty of information exists about this if you're interested. Simply, monopolies if they could exist for even a short period would disappear after some typically short time due to common market forces because no one supplier can ever permanently satisfy the needs of ever-changing markets and customers. Consider reading the history of Standard Oil, which had already started losing its customer base before the infamous court case came along.
The View Tax is an assessment problem because it exists as a tax problem. Without such a tax there would be no assessment of the view. It represents a revenue stream for government and, as such, is arbitrary, as are all such taxes.
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.
