Wrong. Taxation on wages has always been seen as constitutional. The 16th Amendment further clarifies which types of income can be taxed without apportionment (any source of income).
Wrong. Taxation on wages has always been seen as constitutional. The 16th Amendment further clarifies which types of income can be taxed without apportionment (any source of income).
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,145
- 10
- 81
i feel anytime a person is taxed out of a propert6y its wrong. when taxes for a avarage house is $4k a year and you have Senior citizens living on 12-15k a year you have a problem.
a person who has paid off the house should NEVER be taxed out of it. hell a person who has lived there 10 years should never be taxed out.
my mortage is $400 a month. my taxes are $330 a month! thats fricken insane.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,306
- 136
Who protects your right to own property? If your property is burglarized, what pays for the police? If your house catches fire, what pays for the fire dept? In the US, this is usually property taxes. If another party claims ownership to your property, property taxes paid for the county recorders office that recorded your property deed, and the courts wherein you can defend that claim.
The idea of property taxes based on value is to motivate property owners to use their land for 'highest and best use.' IOW, an owner with a valuable piece of property (like a city lot downtown) won't let it sit vacant or unimproved because of the tax penalty of doing so. Instead, he'll develop the property for its most productive use.
The idea of property taxes based on value is to motivate property owners to use their land for 'highest and best use.' IOW, an owner with a valuable piece of property (like a city lot downtown) won't let it sit vacant or unimproved because of the tax penalty of doing so. Instead, he'll develop the property for its most productive use.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,145
- 10
- 81
i agree that people should pay. what i have problems with is a couple that lives in a house for 40+ years (before taxes were done) who are in a fixed income etc. being forced to move because they can't afford the tax's.
back when they planned for retirement there is no way they could of planned for a onother 3-6k a year on tax's
I'd rather have an income tax than a property tax. The idea seems to be in every aspect an abject to liberty. If I have no income I maybe able to live off my land thus I can live and not be subject to taxation. Currently though a person who owns their home out right, who happens to lose their income can lose everything due to lack of paying property taxes. The very notion makes one wonder exactly what property ownership really means. Personally it seems like I'm renting my property from the graciousness of the government. Oh thanks be to the government who makes sure they assume ownership of me and all that I own, from birth to death.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,951
- 136
- 106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
And because, simply, a guy in a one million dollar house can afford $40k/year in property taxes easier than a guy in a 100k! They will tax you anyway they can
..what about retirees who live in their payed off home but are now on a fixed income?? a threshold should be established where upon property taxes are zero for middleclass or less retired folk.
It's been said that taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society, and that's exactly the point here. Even if you have no income and "live off your land", that land is still located somewhere and you dramatically benefit from living there as opposed to some undeveloped wilderness in the middle of nowhere. Since you can't pick up your land and start an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it's impractical to try to cut yourself off from the community you live in...and since you live there, it's reasonable to ask that you support it. "Liberty" is not a magic word that you can wave over a situation to get your way.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,306
- 136
Zoning is only good at dictating what an owner cannot do with his property. How would zoning be enforced with an urban property owner who refused to develop his property to its highest and best use? By taking it from him to give to someone who will?
At least what we have now is a kind of 'pay to play' system. The alternative would be an authoritarian undercutting of basic property rights.
What is a "civilized society"? Do you mean the civilized society that we live in now that takes away an elderly person's property because of an inability to pay taxes due to loss of income? Are you suggesting this is civilized? Before we even begin to discuss what you believe to be liberty maybe we should get your definition of a "civilized society". Liberty is a magic word indeed, but it has nothing to do with getting your way. As a matter of fact Liberty is freedom from oppression, nothing more nothing less. In order to accomplish this one must go to extraordinary lengths. The 1st thing one must do is recognize that taxation is inherently oppression. Your idea that the community takes precedence over the individual is oppression of the individual and his or her liberty. Logic dictates that indeed the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but Liberty dictates that the many deserve no more than the few as this is an aversion on the liberty of the few. This is why logic seems to dictate that communal societies can work, but history has proven that societies based in this ideology have failed because of humanity's inherent "free will".
Humans are not created equally, natural law has dictated that some will be better than others while others may still be worse. This is not something most people want to hear, I dare say it's even non-PC. Lastly, please understand it is not I who lives among the community, it is the community who lives amongst me. The community deserves nothing from me as I deserve nothing from them. What I give the community should be decided by my own free will. Whatever services I require from the community I should compensate for said services, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever services the community requires of me I should be compensated in a mutual agreement.
Regardless of the use of "Property Taxes" (which the majority of mine are used on failing public schools) they are clearly an aversion to liberty. Hence I'd prefer a state income tax to a property tax, at least if I have no income I need not worry about losing a paid off home. Oh so do you consider a society where one can lose essentially everything because they can no longer pay a property tax "civilized"? I must say I find it interesting what people consider civilized.
The spectacular view is selling point of the home, thus making the value of the home more.
Everyone should stop bitching about taxes. You're going to pay it one way or the other. Either by paying property tax, income tax, sales tax. Get rid of one, and the others will go up to compensate.
I dont see the problem with property taxation.
Without property taxation I see the wealthy buying up all the land they want because after the initial cost they own it forever without incurring additional costs. Then leasing that land back to the rest of us at ridiculous rates. Or sitting on the land and not developing it for no cost. Which doesnt help society.
Without property taxation I see the wealthy buying up all the land they want because after the initial cost they own it forever without incurring additional costs. Then leasing that land back to the rest of us at ridiculous rates. Or sitting on the land and not developing it for no cost. Which doesnt help society.
I want to see your attitude when your 75 years old, living off your retirement income you worked hard for and your spouse has passed away and all the financial planning you did in your earlier years still didn't leave you prepared to pay the taxes on the property you lived in for the last 50 years of your life. I want you to explain then that you should lose your home to pay for "upkeep of the community." I want you to tell me you feel it's fair and morally right that you have to move to some dumpy 1 bedroom apartment in the slums because that's all your fixed retirement income will afford you. When you can walk in those shoes, you can come back in here preaching we all owe some fucking debt to our community. Until then, you aint got a clue.
Those of us still in the workforce very well need to pay for the services our communities provide. Consumption taxes, income taxes, etc... should be made to cover that so when you're no longer of working age you don't have to fear losing the only thing you've really got. Property taxes are most certainly feudalism regardless of what you feel the differences might be.
You're either a part of society, or you're not. The diffused economic responsibility is borne by all and benefitted by all. That retiree may not have kids in school, or drive all that much, but they do get benefit of others paying for their livelihood, those others do require those services. It's a distributed cost and a distributed benefit, societal, not feudal.
Please. The local government doesn't horde the wealth to itself, build massive castles for personal gain, nor do they take indentured servants on *THEIR* property.
The hyperbole is pretty fucking thick in this thread.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,306
- 136
Bingo.
Real in this case derives from the Latin for 'actual thing,' meaning property that cannot be moved. While personal property is referred to chattel or 'movable property' (root word for capital).
While the Spanish word for king is 'real,' the Latin word is 'rex.'
People in the US usually own their property in fee simple, not absolute or allodial title.
The old folks losing their home bit is being a tad overplayed here as well. Many states have tax deferrals and even exemptions for low-income senior citizens.
This might be an unintended benefit of property tax laws. It does prevent buy and hold and no development - having to pay tax on land gives incentive for the owner to develop it to generate income or wealth.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
While property taxes might be high in some areas, please list which services you believe you "use" and would gladly pay for and which services are unnecessary.
The best answer to this supposed problem is a homestead exemption which several states have. You owe tax on the property unless you use it as your primary residence. I say triple the tax on all the vacation homes and leave the elderly to die where they lived for most of their lives. Life surely isn't fair but with all the social funding everyone seems so fond of these days, why can't we leave retirees out of the tax pool?
I think the idea of an exemption from property taxes for one's home, for a modest amount (not exempting millionare homes), is an interesting idea to consider.
The whole 'encourage the homeowner to use the land for creating wealth' sounds like a lot of silly right-wing claptrap to me. Why do you need to make your home productive?
There's a societal interest in people being able to have their home for relaxing, not 'creating wealth for the economy'. We need some balance there.
There's a lot to consider, though, from where the taxes will be increased to make up for the reduction, and whether it really is the best policy. Homeowners do owe helping society.
It's not uncommon for there to be unintended consequences to hasty policies, for example, trapping the elderly in large family homes when tax rates are locked in, which serves neither them (who would otherwise prefer a smaller hiome) or the people who need the larger home well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter