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.
Sounds nice in theory, but I'm skeptical of the practical application. The closest plan to yours is the fair tax, but that would require a 30% VAT PLUS the state portion.
Yes it would be substantial and exposing just how much it is would be the point. As I've mentioned the average person has no idea just how much they are really paying in taxes. I want to see the public outraged over how much tax they are really paying.
Yes it would be substantial and exposing just how much it is would be the point. As I've mentioned the average person has no idea just how much they are really paying in taxes. I want to see the public outraged over how much tax they are really paying.
I think a VAT would be unconstitutional on goods and services that do not cross state lines. For instance, under the fairtax I would pay sales tax on my rent, but there is no interstate commerce occurring. Just my perspective.
Adam Smith, the God almighty of Capitalism, stated that feudalism was allowed to exist in Europe only because the owners of the land did not pay their rent to society which had built up around their land and given the land it's value.
Property tax is the most stable of all tax income, which is a bonus, it's progressive, prevents useless sprawl, and forces the owners to be productive with the land.
Just because granps got here first and stole some land from the Indians does not mean that his decedents are entitled to that land forever. If they cannot afford to pay their bill to society for the society around them that increased their property value, then it's time to sell the land.
Should the property tax be abolished and be replaced by a increase to sales tax?
For those who say no, please tell us we those with property need to pay a tax to keep what they own?
That is a regressive fail because it guarantees that people who can't buy a home will keep less of what they earn and will become worse off. If you can solve that issue sure it's a good idea.
Ideally, LAND should be taxed, and the IMPROVEMENTS on that land (buildings) should NOT be taxed.
Of course, I want property tax abolished. It's too much like having to pay rent to the government. A sales tax is better. If you feel you're overtaxed, then quit buying so much stuff. The poor could still have food stamps and other welfare to fall back on.
??? The poor would still be worse off if they have to pay higher taxes. It's not as if their rents are going to fall or anything.
Adam Smith, the God almighty of Capitalism, stated that feudalism was allowed to exist in Europe only because the owners of the land did not pay their rent to society which had built up around their land and given the land it's value.
Property tax is the most stable of all tax income, which is a bonus, it's progressive, prevents useless sprawl, and forces the owners to be productive with the land.
Just because granps got here first and stole some land from the Indians does not mean that his decedents are entitled to that land forever. If they cannot afford to pay their bill to society for the society around them that increased their property value, then it's time to sell the land.
Some people believe the property tax is not at all progressive.
People should not have to fear losing their homes to taxes. Taxes also encourage poor uses of land. Countless acres of land have gone to developers because of rising taxes, or been intensively managed to offset taxes.
Property taxes should not be eliminated, however, every tax payer should pay the same amount across the board....and then, our tax money should be spent wisely, there is no reason why states, and cities should be going broke, however, across the country, our taxes are being spent wrongly.
People should not have to fear losing their homes to taxes. Taxes also encourage poor uses of land. Countless acres of land have gone to developers because of rising taxes, or been intensively managed to offset taxes.
Here in PA they have a "Clean and Green" program. You can significantly reduce the tax burden if you have more than 10 contiguous acres by enrolling it in this program. Once enrolled you have very limited uses for it. It can't be developed and you also have to produce X amount of agriculture, harvest X amount of wood or even let the public use it. If you want to to develop it after it's enrolled there is significant tax penalty, I think you're liable for 7 years back taxes at the normal rate. Same thing applies if you sell it and the new owner wants to take it out of the program.
Every resident (homeowner or renter) of a city or town should pay annual fees based only on the services that are pertinent to them.
Homeowners should not be paying a blanket property tax based on how much their property is worth.
Every resident should pay their share for services such as police, fire and rubbish removal departments.
And those with children in the school system should pay for the schools they use on a per child basis and with the option to be billed monthly. If they don't like it, then don't have kids or don't move to a city or town with high school fees. But at least public school fees would be much less expensive than sending their children to a private school. Or they can homeschool their children instead... but with annual testing to make sure that their children are being taught well enough by their family or non-public school method.
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.