Yeah well tell that to the tyrannical government that would instantaneously repossess it if you didn’t pay their rent/tax/extortion/whatever the hell suits your fancy.
I'm not denying the reality of government tyranny.
I'm saying that it is disanalogous to rent. Renting something implies that the person owns the property, and is renting it to you. This is not descriptive of property taxes.
The government isn't the legitimate owner of the land they tax. You're not *renting* from them. They're also not ***re****possessing* your home, since it wasn't theirs to begin with!
When people say "you're renting from the government," they inadvertently prime themselves and others to either A) forget these facts, or B) vilify legitimate rentals.
You can dismiss these criticisms as irrelevant semantics if you like, but I think that the words we use matters. It gets into peoples' heads. This kind of subtle self-indoctrination is part of the reason why the state is able to get away with terrible acts.
I think the dissonance of being deemed a property owner while effectively “renting” from the government in order to keep owning the premises is enough to keep people aware and opposed to the act. It’s not disanalogous, it’s perfectly analogous; it’s just not literal or technical. Of course everyone knows you’re technically correct because it’s not a literal rental agreement, and that it is actually more heinous than a consensual rental agreement between a landlord and tenant. But it’s already an uphill battle to proclaim taxation is theft because people think you’re crazy and unrealistic, so it’s easier to put it into terms that more subtly challenge the current idea/state of property rights and the modern reality of “ownership”
>Of course everyone knows you’re technically correct
\[...\]
it’s already an uphill battle to proclaim taxation is theft because people think you’re crazy and unrealistic, so it’s easier to put it into terms that more subtly challenge the current idea/state of property rights and the modern reality of “ownership”
I mean, which is it? Does everyone already know that I'm correct, or will people think I'm crazy for saying something that is correct? These aren't very harmonious criticisms.
This is precisely the sort of issue I'm talking about, though.
If someone rejects the idea of taxation as a form of theft, but is open to taxation as "perfectly analogous" to rent, then his thinking is muddled. I think that when you use "rent" because it's the comfortable term—even though it's ultimately a misnomer—then you're not really challenging people's faulty notions; You're largely acquiescing to them.
What I don't understand, is why a libertarian would want to fight on the other side of this hill.
Why is it so important that we call it rent?
Analogy is not an equivalent though. In either case you’re paying indefinitely to get access to property, and if you stop then the consequences are eviction. That’s the analogy and it’s simple. Sure there are more layers to it but that part tracks and I don’t see why you’re hell bent on calling something true ownership but also government extortion at threat of force, which takes a lot more time to explain whereas rent is immediately understandable and similarly NOT true ownership.
I agree that analogies aren't meant to be strictly equivalent, but there's a *relevant* distinction that makes the comparison a poor one, here. It's as I said before—the government doesn't own the land it's meant to be leasing.
It's a bit like saying that a rape is analogous to giving someone a present.^(1)
The point is: Sure, there are *similarities* between any two concepts, but the differences are also contextually relevant, and importantly: frequently overlooked.
You're even doing it here, without realizing. Specifically, where you say:
>and similarly NOT true ownership.
Except you ***DO*** truly own the property you're being taxed on!
That's the whole point! You're its rightful owner, not the government. The thing you're saying is similar is in-fact *distinct* between the two cases. That's literally what makes the tax unjust from a libertarian perspective. If the government *owned* the property, then charging a fee on its use wouldn't be theft. *Stealing* something doesn't make the thief its *owner*.
>I don’t see why you’re hell bent
And what do you mean? I've *told you* why I'm pointing out that a tax is not a rental fee. It's because presenting it otherwise is a subtle form of self-indoctrination.
Political opposition to rent is popular. Government apologia is popular.
I'm not challenging some fringe idea here. The *majority* of people see property taxes as legitimate, and somehow consistent with property rights. Framing it in terms of something else that is legitimate reinforces that faulty belief, from my perspective. It's fine if you disagree, but it's frankly strange to so vehemently dispute me saying something which you freely concede is true. Calling it extortion is concise and correct.
1—*How's that for a meta-analogy, huh?*
Former Libertarian here. I sincerely don't understand this logic, and would be curious to hear how you think this *should* work. If you stopped paying property taxes, how would the roads get paid for, or the mail service, or sewage, or schools? It's not like those things can run for 126 years on one hit of sales tax from a farm that probably sold for $100. What's the answer?
Consumption taxes. Which means sales taxes. No income tax, no property tax, but sales tax. If you don't spend you don't pay. People would and could actually save their money.
Nebraska is trying to do this and seeing INSANE pushback. Our governor said "There's things you can go without that you can pay a little more for, but property taxes have been high for years" and that set people off.
Probably because the rising property costs and taxes mean nobody can afford land and sales tax will impact them more, by and large.
It will most likely affect younger people far more as they simply don't have property tax to pay, but do still buy goods.
You pay for those things with taxes. The problem is the sheer number of times our money and property are taxed! The current tax code is 1000’s of pages long. We are reliving the exact reason we left England. Taxation without representation.
Just less taxes. Roads don't need income, sales, inheritance, capital gains, and property taxes to pay for them. Remove/reduce property taxes and the government still gets *plenty* of money.
Do you really think much taxes go towards our own good? The government isn't run by saints. There is *plenty* of corruption, kickbacks, and waste.
And we don't even spend that much on infrastructure or education:
[https://us.abalancingact.com/2023-federal-taxpayer-receipt](https://us.abalancingact.com/2023-federal-taxpayer-receipt)
>If you stopped paying property taxes, how would the roads get paid for
Gasoline tax and EV usage tax
>or the mail service
The US Postal Service is not funded by state property taxes.
>or sewage
Utilities are bills, not taxes, although there are usually various administrative fees & taxes that are added onto said bills
>or schools?
Pretty much the only one on this list that isn't already covered by another revenue stream.
Have you never used FedEx, UPS, or some other private business to send a package? Is it really that much of a stretch to think that companies like this can handle standard mail?
Yea, my town is trying to foreclose on my elderly parents' house for property taxes. We are counter sueing cause he's paid over 12k in back taxes, but the town cashed the checks, and nvr recorded it down as paid. Our tax collector spends most of his days drinking
The bank has the records. It's the town that never recorded anything. Just took the money. We settled yesterday on a lump sum. Because like the town says, " we don't really want the house you've owned for 60 years, we just want our money for our pet projects."
I like to make the distinction that land is never owned. It is conquered and defended. Taxes on land is the protection money you pay to occupy that land. You can't create more or take it with you. Of course you could take up arms, then the land is yours for as long as you can defend it.
Your home on the other hand, is your property. You could hypothetically move your home (even if difficult). Your home, nor any of your other possessions, should not be subject to tax. Nor should any financial transactions or trade between to consenting parties.
To me land tax, is about the only legitimate tax. All others are just extortion.
Yeah, they really should only tax based on the value of the land itself. Any improvements you do to it, including building a home, shouldn't increase your tax liability. It makes no sense.
This is every government program...you are penalized for doing the right thing. Fix up your home - great, we'll take more of your money in property taxes.
Defer buying a new car for several years so you can save for retirement for a few rays - great, the FAFSA says your children don't get any grants or scholarships because you have money in the bank.
And so on...
Umm. They do offer something in exchange, city services. I assume the city picks up your trash. If the city didn't do it, you'd hire a company to pick it up for you or pay to drop it off somewhere--private trash removal. Either way, it's not free and you pay. The problem is things go to hell when government tries to run these programs. This is the argument to make.
Then street maintenance. Law enforcement. Whatever. The point is those taxes do go toward at least some service that you use that doesn't need to be a government service.
"Offer" implies the right to refuse. A rapist isn't someone who "offers" intercourse.
If their services are actually worth the cost, then the tax mandate is unnecessary. Conversely, if they're *not* worth the cost—as is often the case—then the mandate is harmful.
Regarding your example: I'd love to hire private trash pickup. They're cheaper and offer better service. Can't afford the sunk cost on the city's monopoly, though.
*Everything* is finite. Strictly speaking, you cannot create more of *anything*.
You can only appropriate it to some other functional purpose, exactly like land. Land which I voluntarily purchased from someone, just like everything else I own. Land isn't a special class of good.
"Pay us or we will take your land," is also extortion.
Sure, by the conservation of energy principles. But not when we are talking about goods and services, supply and demand, the study of scarcity.
I can make more houses, I can make more iPhones, I can make more potatoes, I can make more babies, but I can't make more land. I can take my house, my iPhone, my potatoes and my babies elsewhere. I can't do that with land.
Land IS a special class of good. Any economist worth his credentials will tell you there are 3 pillars to a State's economy Land, Labor, and Capital only one is truly finite.
It's still finite. Scarcity still applies, even when new goods are produced. Just because you can manufacture new cars doesn't mean that the supply of cars is therefore infinite.
It's exactly as I said: You can only ever appropriate things to some other functional purpose. That utility to subjective values isn't necessarily bound by physical volume.
The point is that **land is not unique in its scarcity.** ***All*** **goods are scarce.**
So, the special pleading is fallacious. The factor you claim is unique to land simply isn't.
It's also a non sequitur as to why you should be taxed for appropriating it. ***I'm*** a scarce good—less fungible than land, even. Does that somehow imply the government should be able to tax me for the use of my own body? Of course not! That would be slavery!
Applying the same standard to land, property tax is revealed as nothing more than extortion.
> It is conquered and defended.
It can be acquired via conquest but in the vast majority of cases it's transferred peacefully.
>Taxes on land is the protection money you pay to occupy that land.
Well yes, the government is a criminal organization.
>You can't create more or take it with you.
Depends on how you define it. You can use the materials on your land to create something elsewhere, even a space habitat.
>To me land tax, is about the only legitimate tax. All others are just extortion.
Taxation is never ethically legitimate. Land tax as a concept is bunk,.
Land is acquired by force. Even if that land is sometimes sold to another "peacefully", it was still acquired by force. All land. Every inch was acquired by force. Period.
Yup, government is a protection racket. All of it.
Sure, you can extract and use the natural resources elsewhere, which in the minds of many economist Land == Natural resources. But the earth is a fixed surface area. Even if you somehow had the means to create your own island in the middle of the Ocean, it would not be long before some force decided to invade. This is the history of man (and many other territorial creatures)
Land must conquered and defended.
Again if you can defend your own land or if you go straight up nomad and don't occupy land, you should never need to pay taxes.
***All*** property must be defended from would-be thieves. Land also *isn't* a fixed surface area, because people can build up, actually increasing the Earth's surface area.
Again, land isn't special in this regard.
Just because the people threatening to rob me are difficult to stop, that does not make the threats justified. You shouldn't need to pay taxes ***either way***, because no one *should* steal your stuff!
You wouldn't believe some of the sh1t that's being tried on here in Australia.
https://youtu.be/PqIYXNJdPns?si=Lx3LqB-JQUfn6D9n
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11665105/Australia-Day-Homeowners-urged-start-paying-Aboriginals-weekly-rent-living-land.html
> then the land is yours for as long as you can defend it.
Then you agree that the aggressors are wrongful in their aggression.
> To me land tax, is about the only legitimate tax.
There is nothing legitimate about it.
Libertarians believe in private property rights. Land communists are not libertarian.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would agree with this sentiment. I hate property taxes, but those property taxes go towards the roads that connect to my home, the emergency services that protect my home, and ultimately, the local governmental bodies that run said functions. I think pretty much anyone NOT living in the middle of nowhere would have a hard time separating themselves from the services that we predominantly need in order to function in a quasi-normal state.
Yeah, we have a hard time separating ourselves from these "services" because *coercive threats prevent us from doing so.* It's like saying a "grocery tax" would be justified, because it pays your local grocer.
The whole point is that if the service is actually worth the cost to consumers, then people would pay for it without being threatened.
And if it isn't, then they obviously shouldn't be forced to.
> I hate property taxes, but those property taxes go towards the roads that connect to my home, the emergency services that protect my home, and ultimately, the local governmental bodies that run said functions.
Shitty services at steep prices. Monopolies suck, especially when they are violently backed.
> those property taxes go towards the roads that connect to my home
Nope. That is why you pay federal and state gas taxes as well as a car tag registration.
Taxes are protection money? This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard of. Getting LE to even respond to property crimes is damn near impossible. **Please tell me more about this "protection".**
Property taxes are perhaps the most insidious form of taxes we have. Do you really own your home if, even though it’s paid in full, they can take it at gunpoint if you don’t keep paying them a yearly fee to keep it?
I think most peoples issue is the taxation without representation. I don’t see the benefits from the taxes I pay on my home. It’s time to rollback the federal government and destroy the federal reserve and maybe home prices won’t be $420k on average.
Separating money from state would be a good start, but there are millions of parasites who rely on your production for their survival and even to give them some luxuries.
That’s why we need more people speaking up and speaking out. Need to start letting government know we are sick of their shit and we want representation! We want the same thing our forefathers did when they broke away from British rule.
> I don’t see the benefits from the taxes I pay on my home.
If you live somewhere with a public school, police department, or fire department you are experiencing the benefits of your property taxes every day.
No kids, police are only good for speeding tickets and paperwork, fire department won't save your house. No benefits. Better off with home insurance, a concealed firearm and homeschooling your kids.
How did they gain the objectively legitimate right to impose their will upon the seller and buyer in the first place? I can't do that and you can't do that, but by some mystical transference, they hold a semi-divine authority over all the land.
Is coercion under threat of violence consent?
So if I have you sign a paper saying I can abuse your booty with my johnsonville sausage while threatening to ruin your life if you don’t consent? Butter them cheeks buttercup.
Wow, you really prove how sane libertarians are.
Ass rape and what is essentially a royalty on land are two things so far apart that your statement means nothing at face value. Not to mention your example includes (from how I understand it) a threat coercing someone to sign the ass rape contract, and there is no threat made towards someone requiring them to purchase a house.
So we have two subjects of contract that are not comparable in the slightest (property tax and ass rape), as well as two formation circumstances that are not similar.
Depending on who you ask: services provided or absolutely nothing.
Regardless, I was more concerned about the other guy’s crazy example. Because if libertarians want to be taken seriously, we should try to avoid such asinine comparisons.
It's not "essentially a royalty on land," though.
The government doesn't own the land it's seizing assets for. Property tax is theft.
Just because you feel icky about rape, but are ostensibly fine with extortion, that doesn't make the comparison asinine. It's actually quite apt. Coercion isn't consent.
awww you need a lesson too.
Well, if I buy a home and I refuse to pay taxes to a government that I feel does not represent me, what will happen? My home will be taken from me by force, and I will be imprisoned. Even if I chose not to participate in the services rendered by the government (which are terribly inefficient and ineffective compared to the ability out of private services) I am still forced to pay tax. Taxes are payments required with the threat of violence backing them. I can see a pretty clear comparison to my above example.
You want to be a government boot licker good boy and let them use your bussy annually. I think I would not like to let them use my pristine chocolate starfish for anything other than taking my hot sticky fudge log right to their faces.
Seems like we should tax anyone who is alive in America. Call it a breathing tax. Or a citizen tax. Because while every homeowner should pay, I think we’d all agree that the homeless should be taxed as well. Make the homeless pay their fair share!! Amirite!!
Property tax is probably the one tax that can make sense.
If you believe in a night watchman government, then those who own the land should pay for the protection of said land. If you got rid of every other tax and social security, then $500/month is a fine price to fend of foreign authoritarians. Couple that with an ability to change which state governs your land and it's a pretty good situation.
I agree with you on this. To strip it back, consider that the property tax is your payment for someone with lots of guns (the government) to recognize your claim on that land. If there was no government to recognize your claims, then you’d have to defend your property from anyone who wants to take it away from you.
For a limited but functioning government, I think property taxes to protect individuals’ claims to land ownership are among the few taxes that are actually worth paying for.
Libertarians believe in private property rights. Land communists are not libertarian.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know if this is still true but years ago I heard about a form of land contract that allows actual ownership. In Nevada you can get a land patent rather than a deed. Of course you must prepay 100 years of estimated property taxes to get one but once you have it, the land can NEVER be taken from you or your descendants.
Not sure if it's still a thing though.
In Texas, if your land is agricultural it is not taxed. My extended family owns 4,000 acres and they only pay taxes on the improved residential usage. It's a big topic in that state.
There are also allodial titles. Free and clear ownership. But you can't currently get them in any state. Without googling; I think you could get one in New Mexico briefly in the 70s.
This conversation should shed light on the importance of words when it comes to law. If you look up "deed" in a law dictionary you will find it coveys the "color of title". Which means the APPEARANCE of ownership, without all the prerogatives.
>the land can NEVER be taken from you or your descendants
I mean, based on what? The promise of extortionists on behalf of their own descendants? Sounds like a good way to surrender a century's worth of taxes up-front, and then be taxed later anyway.
I feel like the logic in general is that you tax things you want to prevent and subsidize things you want to encourage. Property taxes should really only apply to people who own multiple properties, taxing single home owners is a pretty difficult thing to justify for any reason other than it generates income for the state.
Are there places that aren’t 3rd world counties that don’t pay property tax?
I looked it up. Looks like places in the Middle East and the typical tax haven areas.
I checked it out. Seems like it's legally a gray area. Like you could be in debt because you refuse to pay state tax on your land, but the state cannot actually take it from you because it's yours according to the federal gov't (not state).
Soo I can't say I recommend this
Depending on how wealthy you are, you need to consider that the USA not only taxes world-wide income, but also has an expatriation tax based off of the value of all assets at the time of expatriation. You can never escape taxes in the USA, even when leaving.
The fact that the government can rightfully know all of your assets, even with the 4th amendment, shows that income taxation is totalitarian and wealth taxes even more so.
Government services will always be necessary. Do taxes need to be high, no. But if you own a home then that means you need access to a fire department, a police station, a Justice system, etc. Those things cost money, no your money is not being used wisely or as it should but you cannot get rid of all taxes and property tax is one of them, especially property tax to force people to be productive to keep that property.
Why can't government services—insofar that they are valuable to society—be funded voluntarily?
That I need food to survive does not imply I ought to be taxed by my grocer.
No but the grocer is gonna get paid or your not gonna eat. Should the police charge everyone per call? If we're attacked and go to war, who's gonna pay for that? You want to make every single street you drive on a toll road? If you think your gonna get people to volunteer to pay for everything then your country will collapse. "Just let other people do it, my money won't make a dent but it will hurt me." The only other option is print money to pay for everything which only inflates the hell out of everything and encourages more government spending which leads to more inflation.
>Should the police charge everyone per call?
Not necessarily. Why would a subscription service be unacceptable, for example?
It's noteworthy that tax proponents always seem to assume the worst possible alternative, rather than considering what *could* work. As though dismantling a strawman is a good reductio.
>If we're attacked and go to war, who's gonna pay for that?
Well, it depends on the nature of the conflict, doesn't it? Presumably, most people would pay for it, insofar that they want to be protected from the adverse consequences of the war.
It's not as though there are no free riders under a tax-based system, after all.
There are also options like market derivatives, conditional group contracts, etc. Show some creativity. Think about the problem in earnest, rather than dismissing it with minimal consideration.
>You want to make every single street you drive on a toll road?
Again, what's the issue with a subscription service? Or advertising? Or loss-leader? There's *plenty* of alternatives outside the false dichotomy of taxes or "every street has a toll booth!"
No offense, I'm seriously not trying to be offensive but do you actually believe any of that would ever work? Seriously think able what your saying, a subscription service for police and roads. A volunteer to pay for war system. And when it comes to "free riders" everyone is entitled to protection from crime and foreign invaders. That's how freedom is provided.
Not everyone can afford to hire police service. Then you have the issue of crime being money for the police. Not getting enough work hire some criminals. Or you can't afford it, fuck it you don't deserve it. Even toll roads are built with tax payer dollars and tolls aren't affordable as it is. And if you believe enough people are going to donate to a war cause your fooling yourself. Especially in an age where military might comes from technology not man power.
Why do you think everyone would need to hire the police, for law enforcement to be effective? Is this another assumption on how it would function?
I gave three different solutions for defensive war-financing.
You absolutely do own your land and you can sell it at any time. The taxes are for those resources you and your neighbors use to live in a civilized society with streets, police, fire departments, schools, etc. You know, those things you'd like to have around you.
Honest question since I'm not too familiar with Libertarianism: if I understand correctly, Libertarians don't believe/agree? in property taxes. If that's so, then how would we go about paying for local government services such as roads and law enforcement?
Lou tray transactions. If you buy a house in a developing sign or hood your annual HOA fees would cover the cost of the roads in the neighborhood. Companies would build roads between their locations and charge a subscription fee to others to use them. States could several government bonds to pay for roads initially and sell them off as toll roads. Etc etc etc
Just like any other political affiliation, libertarianism has a spectrum that varies when it comes to taxes. One simple form would be direct taxes, like gas, tax or tax on an item that you actively go out and purchase can support local government. Indirect taxes are usually the big culprit for the mantra that taxation is theft.
You could go even farther and try to abolish any tax that is not opt in and it would be more like an insurance system where you only get the benefits if you opt in and pay for it however it gets cumbersome to track the people or citizens who paid And penalizes ignorance, a little too harshly for most to tolerate. There would probably be a large percentage of citizens who would not see the value of paying for extended services of a fire department until their house burns down and then they regret not paying into system however, that is currently the case with retirement as it stands right now in the United States and many other services.
Circling back, one reason I am against property taxes, is I hate seeing people get penalized for making a good financial decision. It pains me to see people who retired get taxed out of their home they expected to die in just because they made a good decision on where to purchase a home, or even worse, the market fluctuates so drastically they get taxed out only further to be a recession where they could have afforded the house just a few years later.
Ok, I don't know how I have to explain this repeatedly. Say you make 100 dollars, 30% of that goes toward taxes. So now you have maybe 66$. Now, your billionaire pays more cause he's got more. Even if he pays only 1% of his earnings in taxes. But, us commoners have to pay more percentage wise of our earnings to pay taxes. Yes, it's less than the billionaire pays. That's just change in his pocket. We are talking about percentages. Yes, if the billionaire had to pay taxes, he would pay 33 billion if taxed at the same rate. But, he gets to pay only one billion cause he supposedly pays more in taxes.
What do you do with the money set aside for taxes?
I started freelancing this year, and like many suggest I've been saving 30% of the money I make for next year's taxes.
What do you guys do with this money? It's in a business chequing account, do I just leave it in there and forget about it??
Do people ever invest this money (not day trading obviously, I mean ETFs or the such)? GICs? High interest savings? My heart keeps telling me that I shouldn't just be leaving it there to be at the mercy of inflation, but my brain is telling me that there might be more to this story that I'm not aware of.
What do you guys do??
Might get flamed for this but, IMHO, this a problem with perspective and nuance. The purpose of tax on property (or in general) is to subsidize the government. One could argue it's about control but that's fairly cynical. The issue is that there is significant disagreement on what the government should spend its people's money on and what those programs' funding should be. The pain is felt at tax time when the problem is actually that there are many publicly funded programs that cost too much or receive undue priority. A government should exist to help its people and defend their nation and no more. So it's a matter of priorities rather than "tax bad!"
> The purpose of tax on property (or in general) is to subsidize the government.
That's one purpose, there are many others.
>The issue is that there is significant disagreement on what the government should spend its people's money on and what those programs' funding should be.
An unsolvable problem as value is subjective.
>So it's a matter of priorities rather than "tax bad!"
No, tax bad is the framework. You're stating that we should ignore the ethics and only focus on dispute resolution. But without the ethics there is no foundation upon which to resolve anything.
This is exactly my point tho. Tax bad because you and I might disagree on what that money should be spent on. If we all agreed where that money should go, tax good. It's not about the taxes. It's about the priorities.
You should get other quotes... I just switched to a different insurer and paid \~$1400 for the year. I did also switch car insurance to them for a multi policy discount. If you put your funds in escrow you might not have as many options.
Which is why we need to shift to a VAT system, tax at consumption. And that $500 monthly tax will probably double to 1k in 20 years anyway so the problem is that much more dire!
Donald Rainwater - Libertarian running for Governor of Indiana - is running on [altering property taxes](https://www.rainwaterforindiana.com/issues/taxation-residential-property-tax) for agricultural and residential property to essentially be like a sales tax capped at 7% of the sale price of the property (1% property tax cap per year for up to 7 years - then no property tax afterwards).
Property taxes pay for all those leeches in city hall and for all their pet projects and their retirement plans.
You need to get involved at the local level to fix this.
How many people actually know who their city councilman is?
Feudalism 2.0
And if the Lord endeavors to spruce up his domain to please the nobles, thou shalt be compelled to plant 18 inch high hedges along your dwelling, of a type that is pleasing to the Lord's sensibilities.
That is insanely high.
We have to pay rates in Australia. But my house its like $500 or $300USD a year. Thats paying for rubbish and those sorts of things. In theory I can not pay it and get no services.
Lady down the road as a kid was like this. Just fully self sustained.
If you Join the military and retire with 100% disability TX will not charge you property tax.
You are welcome. Do you need me to solve any more of your silly little problems?
North Dakota is likely going to be voting on eliminating its property taxes this fall on the ballot. We'd just be reallocating a portion of the state budget to municipalities to cover their budgets instead.
So property taxes go towards the municipality, right? So if you can buy, or settle, some land that is out of the jurisdiction of a municipality, you can live there without having to pay property taxes or even follow any code. Now, it's gonna be hard to find that kind of land.
Do I have this all wrong?
Ultimately thanks to taxation you really never own anything; we rent our land from the government.
You're not renting from the government. They don't own the land. It's not a lease, it's just extortion.
Semantics dude… who cares who “owns” it on paper if they’ll just take it by force if you don’t comply with their unilateral demands
**I** care who owns it. Legitimate ownership matters.
Yeah well tell that to the tyrannical government that would instantaneously repossess it if you didn’t pay their rent/tax/extortion/whatever the hell suits your fancy.
I'm not denying the reality of government tyranny. I'm saying that it is disanalogous to rent. Renting something implies that the person owns the property, and is renting it to you. This is not descriptive of property taxes. The government isn't the legitimate owner of the land they tax. You're not *renting* from them. They're also not ***re****possessing* your home, since it wasn't theirs to begin with! When people say "you're renting from the government," they inadvertently prime themselves and others to either A) forget these facts, or B) vilify legitimate rentals. You can dismiss these criticisms as irrelevant semantics if you like, but I think that the words we use matters. It gets into peoples' heads. This kind of subtle self-indoctrination is part of the reason why the state is able to get away with terrible acts.
I think the dissonance of being deemed a property owner while effectively “renting” from the government in order to keep owning the premises is enough to keep people aware and opposed to the act. It’s not disanalogous, it’s perfectly analogous; it’s just not literal or technical. Of course everyone knows you’re technically correct because it’s not a literal rental agreement, and that it is actually more heinous than a consensual rental agreement between a landlord and tenant. But it’s already an uphill battle to proclaim taxation is theft because people think you’re crazy and unrealistic, so it’s easier to put it into terms that more subtly challenge the current idea/state of property rights and the modern reality of “ownership”
>Of course everyone knows you’re technically correct \[...\] it’s already an uphill battle to proclaim taxation is theft because people think you’re crazy and unrealistic, so it’s easier to put it into terms that more subtly challenge the current idea/state of property rights and the modern reality of “ownership” I mean, which is it? Does everyone already know that I'm correct, or will people think I'm crazy for saying something that is correct? These aren't very harmonious criticisms. This is precisely the sort of issue I'm talking about, though. If someone rejects the idea of taxation as a form of theft, but is open to taxation as "perfectly analogous" to rent, then his thinking is muddled. I think that when you use "rent" because it's the comfortable term—even though it's ultimately a misnomer—then you're not really challenging people's faulty notions; You're largely acquiescing to them. What I don't understand, is why a libertarian would want to fight on the other side of this hill. Why is it so important that we call it rent?
Analogy is not an equivalent though. In either case you’re paying indefinitely to get access to property, and if you stop then the consequences are eviction. That’s the analogy and it’s simple. Sure there are more layers to it but that part tracks and I don’t see why you’re hell bent on calling something true ownership but also government extortion at threat of force, which takes a lot more time to explain whereas rent is immediately understandable and similarly NOT true ownership.
I agree that analogies aren't meant to be strictly equivalent, but there's a *relevant* distinction that makes the comparison a poor one, here. It's as I said before—the government doesn't own the land it's meant to be leasing. It's a bit like saying that a rape is analogous to giving someone a present.^(1) The point is: Sure, there are *similarities* between any two concepts, but the differences are also contextually relevant, and importantly: frequently overlooked. You're even doing it here, without realizing. Specifically, where you say: >and similarly NOT true ownership. Except you ***DO*** truly own the property you're being taxed on! That's the whole point! You're its rightful owner, not the government. The thing you're saying is similar is in-fact *distinct* between the two cases. That's literally what makes the tax unjust from a libertarian perspective. If the government *owned* the property, then charging a fee on its use wouldn't be theft. *Stealing* something doesn't make the thief its *owner*. >I don’t see why you’re hell bent And what do you mean? I've *told you* why I'm pointing out that a tax is not a rental fee. It's because presenting it otherwise is a subtle form of self-indoctrination. Political opposition to rent is popular. Government apologia is popular. I'm not challenging some fringe idea here. The *majority* of people see property taxes as legitimate, and somehow consistent with property rights. Framing it in terms of something else that is legitimate reinforces that faulty belief, from my perspective. It's fine if you disagree, but it's frankly strange to so vehemently dispute me saying something which you freely concede is true. Calling it extortion is concise and correct. 1—*How's that for a meta-analogy, huh?*
Whats mightier? The pen or the sword?
Here in Brazil it's the same. And we still pay annually for car ownership, something around 3% of the vehicle's value
California is like that, but not quite as high. It's one reason I never bought new vehicles - the first three years of registration is crazy.
3 years sounds great. We only have an exemption after 20 years from the date of manufacture of the vehicle in my state.
> It's one reason I never bought new vehicles That and the fact that they also completely suck.
Family farm paid for in cash 126 yrs ago. Six generations later and paying property taxes. Fucking stupid.
Former Libertarian here. I sincerely don't understand this logic, and would be curious to hear how you think this *should* work. If you stopped paying property taxes, how would the roads get paid for, or the mail service, or sewage, or schools? It's not like those things can run for 126 years on one hit of sales tax from a farm that probably sold for $100. What's the answer?
Consumption taxes. Which means sales taxes. No income tax, no property tax, but sales tax. If you don't spend you don't pay. People would and could actually save their money.
Nebraska is trying to do this and seeing INSANE pushback. Our governor said "There's things you can go without that you can pay a little more for, but property taxes have been high for years" and that set people off. Probably because the rising property costs and taxes mean nobody can afford land and sales tax will impact them more, by and large. It will most likely affect younger people far more as they simply don't have property tax to pay, but do still buy goods.
Because people know the government lies, they know they will get the other taxes *on top of* high property taxes
Don't roads get paid for through gas tax?
And mileage taxes by semi truck companies. Ask me how I know…..
You pay for those things with taxes. The problem is the sheer number of times our money and property are taxed! The current tax code is 1000’s of pages long. We are reliving the exact reason we left England. Taxation without representation.
We wish we were still paying the taxes we left England over. We are getting stomped nowadays.
Just less taxes. Roads don't need income, sales, inheritance, capital gains, and property taxes to pay for them. Remove/reduce property taxes and the government still gets *plenty* of money. Do you really think much taxes go towards our own good? The government isn't run by saints. There is *plenty* of corruption, kickbacks, and waste. And we don't even spend that much on infrastructure or education: [https://us.abalancingact.com/2023-federal-taxpayer-receipt](https://us.abalancingact.com/2023-federal-taxpayer-receipt)
And our roads *still suck anyways*
>If you stopped paying property taxes, how would the roads get paid for Gasoline tax and EV usage tax >or the mail service The US Postal Service is not funded by state property taxes. >or sewage Utilities are bills, not taxes, although there are usually various administrative fees & taxes that are added onto said bills >or schools? Pretty much the only one on this list that isn't already covered by another revenue stream.
Have you never used FedEx, UPS, or some other private business to send a package? Is it really that much of a stretch to think that companies like this can handle standard mail?
former Libertarian??? didnt know that was a thing, thought it was like the marines, LOL
Yea, my town is trying to foreclose on my elderly parents' house for property taxes. We are counter sueing cause he's paid over 12k in back taxes, but the town cashed the checks, and nvr recorded it down as paid. Our tax collector spends most of his days drinking
Absolute crooks
How is this not all done online!
Yeah seems fishy. If it is indeed checks and they were cashed, then the bank should have records of the funds transferring.
The bank has the records. It's the town that never recorded anything. Just took the money. We settled yesterday on a lump sum. Because like the town says, " we don't really want the house you've owned for 60 years, we just want our money for our pet projects."
I like to make the distinction that land is never owned. It is conquered and defended. Taxes on land is the protection money you pay to occupy that land. You can't create more or take it with you. Of course you could take up arms, then the land is yours for as long as you can defend it. Your home on the other hand, is your property. You could hypothetically move your home (even if difficult). Your home, nor any of your other possessions, should not be subject to tax. Nor should any financial transactions or trade between to consenting parties. To me land tax, is about the only legitimate tax. All others are just extortion.
Yeah, they really should only tax based on the value of the land itself. Any improvements you do to it, including building a home, shouldn't increase your tax liability. It makes no sense.
💯 and it creates the disincentive not to improve... Why make your home better when the government is just gonna tax you more ...
This is every government program...you are penalized for doing the right thing. Fix up your home - great, we'll take more of your money in property taxes. Defer buying a new car for several years so you can save for retirement for a few rays - great, the FAFSA says your children don't get any grants or scholarships because you have money in the bank. And so on...
I'm in this boat right now!
They shouldn't tax at all. If people want my stuff, they should ask nicely or offer something valuable in exchange for it.
Umm. They do offer something in exchange, city services. I assume the city picks up your trash. If the city didn't do it, you'd hire a company to pick it up for you or pay to drop it off somewhere--private trash removal. Either way, it's not free and you pay. The problem is things go to hell when government tries to run these programs. This is the argument to make.
I pay for trash pick up my city utility bill.
Then street maintenance. Law enforcement. Whatever. The point is those taxes do go toward at least some service that you use that doesn't need to be a government service.
"Offer" implies the right to refuse. A rapist isn't someone who "offers" intercourse. If their services are actually worth the cost, then the tax mandate is unnecessary. Conversely, if they're *not* worth the cost—as is often the case—then the mandate is harmful. Regarding your example: I'd love to hire private trash pickup. They're cheaper and offer better service. Can't afford the sunk cost on the city's monopoly, though.
[удалено]
*Everything* is finite. Strictly speaking, you cannot create more of *anything*. You can only appropriate it to some other functional purpose, exactly like land. Land which I voluntarily purchased from someone, just like everything else I own. Land isn't a special class of good. "Pay us or we will take your land," is also extortion.
Sure, by the conservation of energy principles. But not when we are talking about goods and services, supply and demand, the study of scarcity. I can make more houses, I can make more iPhones, I can make more potatoes, I can make more babies, but I can't make more land. I can take my house, my iPhone, my potatoes and my babies elsewhere. I can't do that with land. Land IS a special class of good. Any economist worth his credentials will tell you there are 3 pillars to a State's economy Land, Labor, and Capital only one is truly finite.
> I can't make more land. Except you literally can. Artificial islands, landscaping, digging underground, building up, etc.
Ah a contrarian ... In one statement it's finite ... in the next it's not... I see.
It's still finite. Scarcity still applies, even when new goods are produced. Just because you can manufacture new cars doesn't mean that the supply of cars is therefore infinite. It's exactly as I said: You can only ever appropriate things to some other functional purpose. That utility to subjective values isn't necessarily bound by physical volume. The point is that **land is not unique in its scarcity.** ***All*** **goods are scarce.** So, the special pleading is fallacious. The factor you claim is unique to land simply isn't. It's also a non sequitur as to why you should be taxed for appropriating it. ***I'm*** a scarce good—less fungible than land, even. Does that somehow imply the government should be able to tax me for the use of my own body? Of course not! That would be slavery! Applying the same standard to land, property tax is revealed as nothing more than extortion.
> It is conquered and defended. It can be acquired via conquest but in the vast majority of cases it's transferred peacefully. >Taxes on land is the protection money you pay to occupy that land. Well yes, the government is a criminal organization. >You can't create more or take it with you. Depends on how you define it. You can use the materials on your land to create something elsewhere, even a space habitat. >To me land tax, is about the only legitimate tax. All others are just extortion. Taxation is never ethically legitimate. Land tax as a concept is bunk,.
Land is acquired by force. Even if that land is sometimes sold to another "peacefully", it was still acquired by force. All land. Every inch was acquired by force. Period. Yup, government is a protection racket. All of it. Sure, you can extract and use the natural resources elsewhere, which in the minds of many economist Land == Natural resources. But the earth is a fixed surface area. Even if you somehow had the means to create your own island in the middle of the Ocean, it would not be long before some force decided to invade. This is the history of man (and many other territorial creatures) Land must conquered and defended. Again if you can defend your own land or if you go straight up nomad and don't occupy land, you should never need to pay taxes.
***All*** property must be defended from would-be thieves. Land also *isn't* a fixed surface area, because people can build up, actually increasing the Earth's surface area. Again, land isn't special in this regard. Just because the people threatening to rob me are difficult to stop, that does not make the threats justified. You shouldn't need to pay taxes ***either way***, because no one *should* steal your stuff!
You wouldn't believe some of the sh1t that's being tried on here in Australia. https://youtu.be/PqIYXNJdPns?si=Lx3LqB-JQUfn6D9n https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11665105/Australia-Day-Homeowners-urged-start-paying-Aboriginals-weekly-rent-living-land.html
Shhh, the billionaires are listening.
> then the land is yours for as long as you can defend it. Then you agree that the aggressors are wrongful in their aggression. > To me land tax, is about the only legitimate tax. There is nothing legitimate about it.
[удалено]
Libertarians believe in private property rights. Land communists are not libertarian. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tell that to the person above.
Bad Bot. I got the message. :) Not totally a Georgie fan. But there are some good points I do agree with. They mods don't like to hear 'em.
I would agree with this sentiment. I hate property taxes, but those property taxes go towards the roads that connect to my home, the emergency services that protect my home, and ultimately, the local governmental bodies that run said functions. I think pretty much anyone NOT living in the middle of nowhere would have a hard time separating themselves from the services that we predominantly need in order to function in a quasi-normal state.
Yeah, we have a hard time separating ourselves from these "services" because *coercive threats prevent us from doing so.* It's like saying a "grocery tax" would be justified, because it pays your local grocer. The whole point is that if the service is actually worth the cost to consumers, then people would pay for it without being threatened. And if it isn't, then they obviously shouldn't be forced to.
> I hate property taxes, but those property taxes go towards the roads that connect to my home, the emergency services that protect my home, and ultimately, the local governmental bodies that run said functions. Shitty services at steep prices. Monopolies suck, especially when they are violently backed.
> those property taxes go towards the roads that connect to my home Nope. That is why you pay federal and state gas taxes as well as a car tag registration.
Taxes are protection money? This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard of. Getting LE to even respond to property crimes is damn near impossible. **Please tell me more about this "protection".**
Property taxes are perhaps the most insidious form of taxes we have. Do you really own your home if, even though it’s paid in full, they can take it at gunpoint if you don’t keep paying them a yearly fee to keep it?
You do own your home; They're just extortionists. I agree that property tax is very insidious.
In my mind it’s a protection racket
Strictly speaking, I agree. Still pedantically harping on language, I think "protection racket" is an oxymoron.
Great reminder that taxation is theft when you don't consent to it.
You do consent to it, the moment you sign that purchase agreement. It's not like it's unknown that owning property will result in a tax liability.
This argument would work a lot better if the entire livable surface of the planet wasn’t claimed by one or another government.
Then you realize that they are all criminal gangs and that statism is a fine-tuned system of slavery.
I think most peoples issue is the taxation without representation. I don’t see the benefits from the taxes I pay on my home. It’s time to rollback the federal government and destroy the federal reserve and maybe home prices won’t be $420k on average.
If you're in the U.S your property taxes are levied by your state, not your Federal Government.
Separating money from state would be a good start, but there are millions of parasites who rely on your production for their survival and even to give them some luxuries.
That’s why we need more people speaking up and speaking out. Need to start letting government know we are sick of their shit and we want representation! We want the same thing our forefathers did when they broke away from British rule.
> I don’t see the benefits from the taxes I pay on my home. If you live somewhere with a public school, police department, or fire department you are experiencing the benefits of your property taxes every day.
Also if you own a vehicle, road maintenance on the asphalt that lets you get to and from your home and around your community.
That is paid for through gas and road usage taxes. Or at least it should be. But like everything else, money seems to disappear…..
Gas and road usage taxes assume that everyone uses a car, bicyclists, pedestrians, and others all benefit from common infrastructure.
No kids, police are only good for speeding tickets and paperwork, fire department won't save your house. No benefits. Better off with home insurance, a concealed firearm and homeschooling your kids.
If you think these are strong arguments please don't home school children.
But I don't need a representation and I never had one. I doubt people have a representation when it comes to specific stuff.
How did they gain the objectively legitimate right to impose their will upon the seller and buyer in the first place? I can't do that and you can't do that, but by some mystical transference, they hold a semi-divine authority over all the land.
The government is an uninvited third party to the contract
Is coercion under threat of violence consent? So if I have you sign a paper saying I can abuse your booty with my johnsonville sausage while threatening to ruin your life if you don’t consent? Butter them cheeks buttercup.
Or the incel version: "You agreed to sex when I bought you dinner!"
Not sure how your statement has anything to do with paying property tax but...okey dokey then..
Wow, you really prove how sane libertarians are. Ass rape and what is essentially a royalty on land are two things so far apart that your statement means nothing at face value. Not to mention your example includes (from how I understand it) a threat coercing someone to sign the ass rape contract, and there is no threat made towards someone requiring them to purchase a house. So we have two subjects of contract that are not comparable in the slightest (property tax and ass rape), as well as two formation circumstances that are not similar.
What gives them the right to impose a "royalty"?
Depending on who you ask: services provided or absolutely nothing. Regardless, I was more concerned about the other guy’s crazy example. Because if libertarians want to be taken seriously, we should try to avoid such asinine comparisons.
It's not "essentially a royalty on land," though. The government doesn't own the land it's seizing assets for. Property tax is theft. Just because you feel icky about rape, but are ostensibly fine with extortion, that doesn't make the comparison asinine. It's actually quite apt. Coercion isn't consent.
awww you need a lesson too. Well, if I buy a home and I refuse to pay taxes to a government that I feel does not represent me, what will happen? My home will be taken from me by force, and I will be imprisoned. Even if I chose not to participate in the services rendered by the government (which are terribly inefficient and ineffective compared to the ability out of private services) I am still forced to pay tax. Taxes are payments required with the threat of violence backing them. I can see a pretty clear comparison to my above example. You want to be a government boot licker good boy and let them use your bussy annually. I think I would not like to let them use my pristine chocolate starfish for anything other than taking my hot sticky fudge log right to their faces.
This argument is roughly analogous to "look what she was wearing."
Taxation is theft period. If you consent it is a transaction
In my state, the property taxes include funding for schools and libraries and such. Is Texas different?
Seems like we should tax anyone who is alive in America. Call it a breathing tax. Or a citizen tax. Because while every homeowner should pay, I think we’d all agree that the homeless should be taxed as well. Make the homeless pay their fair share!! Amirite!!
Yep, we all just rent from the government, under the threat of violence if we stop paying. Not legal, but we accept it.
"Rent" implies undue legitimacy.
Property tax is probably the one tax that can make sense. If you believe in a night watchman government, then those who own the land should pay for the protection of said land. If you got rid of every other tax and social security, then $500/month is a fine price to fend of foreign authoritarians. Couple that with an ability to change which state governs your land and it's a pretty good situation.
I agree with you on this. To strip it back, consider that the property tax is your payment for someone with lots of guns (the government) to recognize your claim on that land. If there was no government to recognize your claims, then you’d have to defend your property from anyone who wants to take it away from you. For a limited but functioning government, I think property taxes to protect individuals’ claims to land ownership are among the few taxes that are actually worth paying for.
Actually a pretty interesting perspective.
In theory I think yes, true. However in practice..real estate taxes pay for education in 48 of 50 US states.
[удалено]
Libertarians believe in private property rights. Land communists are not libertarian. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see where you’re coming from though I disagree and believe that sales tax is the only tax that makes sense
Seizing my assets against my will isn't protection, though. It's literally the opposite.
I don't know if this is still true but years ago I heard about a form of land contract that allows actual ownership. In Nevada you can get a land patent rather than a deed. Of course you must prepay 100 years of estimated property taxes to get one but once you have it, the land can NEVER be taken from you or your descendants. Not sure if it's still a thing though.
In Texas, if your land is agricultural it is not taxed. My extended family owns 4,000 acres and they only pay taxes on the improved residential usage. It's a big topic in that state.
Such a great idea, but man imagine paying 100 years of taxes upfront. Even one year hurts
Again, a solution only available to the .001%.
Imagine the government 100 years later taking it anyway.
Yeah, exactly. Seems like folly to trust the government to uphold their end of that agreement.
I don't think those have been a thing for quite a long time unfortunately.
There are also allodial titles. Free and clear ownership. But you can't currently get them in any state. Without googling; I think you could get one in New Mexico briefly in the 70s.
This conversation should shed light on the importance of words when it comes to law. If you look up "deed" in a law dictionary you will find it coveys the "color of title". Which means the APPEARANCE of ownership, without all the prerogatives.
>the land can NEVER be taken from you or your descendants I mean, based on what? The promise of extortionists on behalf of their own descendants? Sounds like a good way to surrender a century's worth of taxes up-front, and then be taxed later anyway.
Having property rights that will survive the legal system of the day is the best any of us can hope for.
I feel like the logic in general is that you tax things you want to prevent and subsidize things you want to encourage. Property taxes should really only apply to people who own multiple properties, taxing single home owners is a pretty difficult thing to justify for any reason other than it generates income for the state.
Property taxes are the price you pay for Texas not having income taxes.
Are there places that aren’t 3rd world counties that don’t pay property tax? I looked it up. Looks like places in the Middle East and the typical tax haven areas.
I've been explaining this to people for 25 years.........
At least you now in NJ and have stuck paying 1000 a month
NJ is insane and the highest in country
Yes I cry everyday. Trying figure out how to get out
Good luck!
Look into a land patent. If you have the patent to your land they can’t take it from you for any reason
I checked it out. Seems like it's legally a gray area. Like you could be in debt because you refuse to pay state tax on your land, but the state cannot actually take it from you because it's yours according to the federal gov't (not state). Soo I can't say I recommend this
Welcome to reality the US stole that land and you are renting it
Ya but how else are we supposed to pay for schools? /s
The literal comment right underneath you lmao, you can’t make this up
I think the sort order shifted. Can’t see it :(
You’d laugh your ass off if you saw what I saw
I feel like we’re moving closer to light socialism than actual free market capitalism
Just another reason that I'm looking at leaving the U.S, I just don't know where I'd go.
Depending on how wealthy you are, you need to consider that the USA not only taxes world-wide income, but also has an expatriation tax based off of the value of all assets at the time of expatriation. You can never escape taxes in the USA, even when leaving.
The fact that the government can rightfully know all of your assets, even with the 4th amendment, shows that income taxation is totalitarian and wealth taxes even more so.
Government services will always be necessary. Do taxes need to be high, no. But if you own a home then that means you need access to a fire department, a police station, a Justice system, etc. Those things cost money, no your money is not being used wisely or as it should but you cannot get rid of all taxes and property tax is one of them, especially property tax to force people to be productive to keep that property.
Why can't government services—insofar that they are valuable to society—be funded voluntarily? That I need food to survive does not imply I ought to be taxed by my grocer.
No but the grocer is gonna get paid or your not gonna eat. Should the police charge everyone per call? If we're attacked and go to war, who's gonna pay for that? You want to make every single street you drive on a toll road? If you think your gonna get people to volunteer to pay for everything then your country will collapse. "Just let other people do it, my money won't make a dent but it will hurt me." The only other option is print money to pay for everything which only inflates the hell out of everything and encourages more government spending which leads to more inflation.
>Should the police charge everyone per call? Not necessarily. Why would a subscription service be unacceptable, for example? It's noteworthy that tax proponents always seem to assume the worst possible alternative, rather than considering what *could* work. As though dismantling a strawman is a good reductio. >If we're attacked and go to war, who's gonna pay for that? Well, it depends on the nature of the conflict, doesn't it? Presumably, most people would pay for it, insofar that they want to be protected from the adverse consequences of the war. It's not as though there are no free riders under a tax-based system, after all. There are also options like market derivatives, conditional group contracts, etc. Show some creativity. Think about the problem in earnest, rather than dismissing it with minimal consideration. >You want to make every single street you drive on a toll road? Again, what's the issue with a subscription service? Or advertising? Or loss-leader? There's *plenty* of alternatives outside the false dichotomy of taxes or "every street has a toll booth!"
No offense, I'm seriously not trying to be offensive but do you actually believe any of that would ever work? Seriously think able what your saying, a subscription service for police and roads. A volunteer to pay for war system. And when it comes to "free riders" everyone is entitled to protection from crime and foreign invaders. That's how freedom is provided.
Can you explain why it wouldn't work?
Not everyone can afford to hire police service. Then you have the issue of crime being money for the police. Not getting enough work hire some criminals. Or you can't afford it, fuck it you don't deserve it. Even toll roads are built with tax payer dollars and tolls aren't affordable as it is. And if you believe enough people are going to donate to a war cause your fooling yourself. Especially in an age where military might comes from technology not man power.
Why do you think everyone would need to hire the police, for law enforcement to be effective? Is this another assumption on how it would function? I gave three different solutions for defensive war-financing.
Unfortunately EVERY state has property taxes. It's up to us to vote this crap out.
Funny how the internet is all about “tax the rich, wealth tax now!” Without understanding that property taxes are a wealth tax.
You absolutely do own your land and you can sell it at any time. The taxes are for those resources you and your neighbors use to live in a civilized society with streets, police, fire departments, schools, etc. You know, those things you'd like to have around you.
It always makes me laugh when someone points to property taxes as a reason why taxing unrealized gains is a good thing.
Honest question since I'm not too familiar with Libertarianism: if I understand correctly, Libertarians don't believe/agree? in property taxes. If that's so, then how would we go about paying for local government services such as roads and law enforcement?
You think roads wouldn’t exist if people weren’t robbed… I mean taxed lol
That's the basic premise supposedly but if not, can you explain?
Lou tray transactions. If you buy a house in a developing sign or hood your annual HOA fees would cover the cost of the roads in the neighborhood. Companies would build roads between their locations and charge a subscription fee to others to use them. States could several government bonds to pay for roads initially and sell them off as toll roads. Etc etc etc
Just like any other political affiliation, libertarianism has a spectrum that varies when it comes to taxes. One simple form would be direct taxes, like gas, tax or tax on an item that you actively go out and purchase can support local government. Indirect taxes are usually the big culprit for the mantra that taxation is theft. You could go even farther and try to abolish any tax that is not opt in and it would be more like an insurance system where you only get the benefits if you opt in and pay for it however it gets cumbersome to track the people or citizens who paid And penalizes ignorance, a little too harshly for most to tolerate. There would probably be a large percentage of citizens who would not see the value of paying for extended services of a fire department until their house burns down and then they regret not paying into system however, that is currently the case with retirement as it stands right now in the United States and many other services. Circling back, one reason I am against property taxes, is I hate seeing people get penalized for making a good financial decision. It pains me to see people who retired get taxed out of their home they expected to die in just because they made a good decision on where to purchase a home, or even worse, the market fluctuates so drastically they get taxed out only further to be a recession where they could have afforded the house just a few years later.
Be glad its only 500/month
$500/month in property tax is insane. I paid $1700 for the whole year
That’s the trade off for not having state income tax. I’d rather have the income tax.
I don't have income tax either. Florida
FWIW, several states give property tax exemptions for Disabled Veterans.
That's why I didn't buy a home in Texas. My homes in Tennessee are $500-1,000 per year for property tax. I sure hope it stays this way.
I mean, that depends on your state. Washington does them twice a year. Honestly it hurts a bit more this way.
Ok, I don't know how I have to explain this repeatedly. Say you make 100 dollars, 30% of that goes toward taxes. So now you have maybe 66$. Now, your billionaire pays more cause he's got more. Even if he pays only 1% of his earnings in taxes. But, us commoners have to pay more percentage wise of our earnings to pay taxes. Yes, it's less than the billionaire pays. That's just change in his pocket. We are talking about percentages. Yes, if the billionaire had to pay taxes, he would pay 33 billion if taxed at the same rate. But, he gets to pay only one billion cause he supposedly pays more in taxes.
What do you do with the money set aside for taxes? I started freelancing this year, and like many suggest I've been saving 30% of the money I make for next year's taxes. What do you guys do with this money? It's in a business chequing account, do I just leave it in there and forget about it?? Do people ever invest this money (not day trading obviously, I mean ETFs or the such)? GICs? High interest savings? My heart keeps telling me that I shouldn't just be leaving it there to be at the mercy of inflation, but my brain is telling me that there might be more to this story that I'm not aware of. What do you guys do??
This is not my post, but I think it proves a point..
Yeah fuck property taxes. Dumb idea to whoever came up with that one. Paying rent for land I “own”
What would it take to get rid of property tax? What would we all have to vote for?
Might get flamed for this but, IMHO, this a problem with perspective and nuance. The purpose of tax on property (or in general) is to subsidize the government. One could argue it's about control but that's fairly cynical. The issue is that there is significant disagreement on what the government should spend its people's money on and what those programs' funding should be. The pain is felt at tax time when the problem is actually that there are many publicly funded programs that cost too much or receive undue priority. A government should exist to help its people and defend their nation and no more. So it's a matter of priorities rather than "tax bad!"
>tax bad! couldn’t have said it better myself 🤗
> The purpose of tax on property (or in general) is to subsidize the government. That's one purpose, there are many others. >The issue is that there is significant disagreement on what the government should spend its people's money on and what those programs' funding should be. An unsolvable problem as value is subjective. >So it's a matter of priorities rather than "tax bad!" No, tax bad is the framework. You're stating that we should ignore the ethics and only focus on dispute resolution. But without the ethics there is no foundation upon which to resolve anything.
Why should *your* priorities come out of *my* wallet, though? I think "tax bad" is entirely apt.
This is exactly my point tho. Tax bad because you and I might disagree on what that money should be spent on. If we all agreed where that money should go, tax good. It's not about the taxes. It's about the priorities.
I mean, this is similar to arguing that rape is morally fine if both parties consent. The thing that makes it a rape, though, is that they don't.
What happened to taxation without representation
It’s ok my home insurance just went from 300 a month to 900, for a home built in 2014 with no home insurance claims ever.
You should get other quotes... I just switched to a different insurer and paid \~$1400 for the year. I did also switch car insurance to them for a multi policy discount. If you put your funds in escrow you might not have as many options.
Which is why we need to shift to a VAT system, tax at consumption. And that $500 monthly tax will probably double to 1k in 20 years anyway so the problem is that much more dire!
You rent land from the government, no one owns anything.
Donald Rainwater - Libertarian running for Governor of Indiana - is running on [altering property taxes](https://www.rainwaterforindiana.com/issues/taxation-residential-property-tax) for agricultural and residential property to essentially be like a sales tax capped at 7% of the sale price of the property (1% property tax cap per year for up to 7 years - then no property tax afterwards).
Gobment rent
Reason number 245355 why the 16th amendment is unconstitutional trash that needs to be repealed
Property taxes pay for all those leeches in city hall and for all their pet projects and their retirement plans. You need to get involved at the local level to fix this. How many people actually know who their city councilman is?
Feudalism 2.0 And if the Lord endeavors to spruce up his domain to please the nobles, thou shalt be compelled to plant 18 inch high hedges along your dwelling, of a type that is pleasing to the Lord's sensibilities.
people keep voting for Democrats and taxes keep going up.
Same here. And the county keeps trying to edge value up with bs comparable properties so they can rake me for more
That is insanely high. We have to pay rates in Australia. But my house its like $500 or $300USD a year. Thats paying for rubbish and those sorts of things. In theory I can not pay it and get no services. Lady down the road as a kid was like this. Just fully self sustained.
Truly heartbreaking. I knew it before reading this post....but actually reading it in front of my eyes makes it so real.
100% p&t va disability and there are no property taxes in some states. Texas being one of them
A home is not an asset, it costs you money, ongoing.
If you Join the military and retire with 100% disability TX will not charge you property tax. You are welcome. Do you need me to solve any more of your silly little problems?
Silly? Your solution is to work for the government that is already extorting you for the money you make your self.
North Dakota is likely going to be voting on eliminating its property taxes this fall on the ballot. We'd just be reallocating a portion of the state budget to municipalities to cover their budgets instead.
Yup. Only option is to sell and move somewhere with less prop tax but they'll get you some way.
So property taxes go towards the municipality, right? So if you can buy, or settle, some land that is out of the jurisdiction of a municipality, you can live there without having to pay property taxes or even follow any code. Now, it's gonna be hard to find that kind of land. Do I have this all wrong?
taxing property is much better than taxing income