5 ms·

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

all2 2mo ago
Property tax is theft. By applying a tax to a _thing_ that someone owns, you are saying 'actually, this thing you have is mine, and if you don't pay me for the privilege of having it, I will take it away from you'.
- nisegami 2mo ago
  Land ownership is theft. Why should people have a right in perpetuity to the land that we all share?
  - itake 2mo ago
    In the UK, a leaseholders get screwed if they forget to renew their lease before the 80 year mark. The cost to develop the land needs to justify the development. If I spent $500k to build a house on the land, I would like to be able to use that house for as long as the house exists (or I sell it to re-coop the investment). Many people are really bad at saving properly, but they will pay their mortgage. Landownership enables at least some old people to have a cushion in retirement.
    - Giefo6ah 2mo ago
      You're mixing a house as personal property with the much broader claim of private property on land. It is possible to protect those two uses you mentioned, and other reasonable uses of land, without at the same time spending state resources in enforcing perpetual, absolute, hereditary, exclusive titles on plots of land.
  - FunHearing3443 2mo ago
    We may live in the same country or planet but that does not mean we inherently have any share of the land.
  - marcusverus 2mo ago
    Motte: We all share the land! Bailey: The state owns all land!
- itake 2mo ago
  Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but who pays for the roads to houses in the suburbs and why is it the people living in apartments that don't use many roads?
  - all2 2mo ago
    I'm not saying taxes are bad. I'm saying specifically that taxing property itself is bad. If someone 'owns' a thing, why would they pay rent to some landlord (the state)? I acknowledge that I'm indulging in equivocation by saying 'assessing taxes from property is essentially paying rent to the state'. I assert that the equivocation is valid because the outcomes of not paying rent and not paying property taxes is the same: you get evicted.
    - pandaman 2mo ago
      This depends on what you mean by "own". We have property rights, which are colloquially referenced as "ownership" but, by definition, these are rights and don't exist outside the state, which enforces them. So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours?
      - all2 2mo ago
        > So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. This ignores the Constitution and the acknowledgement of 'inalienable rights'. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...] In essence, the government of the United States derives its power from the governed, and otherwise wields no true power. The Constitution of this nation is written specifically limiting powers of the government, and not enumerating the rights of the people. > If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours? Yes. This is where the second and fourth amendments to the constitution are important. True sovereignty (not in the sense of that 'sovereign citizen' nonsense) comes with martial ability; that is, the right to take another life. Sovereignty is necessarily paired with 'power', as without it, there isn't any true ability to protect one's rights. --- All that said, I'm appealing to an ideal when I say 'property tax is theft'.
- jandrewrogers 2mo ago
  Property tax pays for maintaining the utilities and services connected to the property. If you buy land that is completely unconnected from public services, you will find that the corresponding property taxes are extremely low. I've had annual property taxes as low as $1/acre.
  - FloatArtifact 2mo ago
    For context, mine are close to 3 grand a year. For plot, just big enough to fit the home and a little yard in town
- BrenBarn 2mo ago
  Sounds fine to me! I mean, it depends on how much the person owns. But I'm fine just saying "you own too much, you don't get to own that much anymore".
itake 2mo ago
I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs.
- FloatArtifact 2mo ago
  > I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs. That's a good point, and it's why I qualified my statement by saying under a certain income. You say high density as if it's a bad thing.
  - itake 2mo ago
    Pros and Cons. I currently have an upstairs neighbor that plays piano at 4am. As a high density resident, I would like to capture all of the pros of having a smaller foot print, since there is nothing insulating me from the negatives. My neighbor in Seattle only needed 5 homes to convince the gas company to dig up our road and install a gas line down our street. There is no way the gas company had the money for that purely on the revenue they may collect from those 5 homes...
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

all2 2mo ago

Property tax is theft. By applying a tax to a _thing_ that someone owns, you are saying 'actually, this thing you have is mine, and if you don't pay me for the privilege of having it, I will take it away from you'.

nisegami 2mo ago
Land ownership is theft. Why should people have a right in perpetuity to the land that we all share?
- itake 2mo ago
  In the UK, a leaseholders get screwed if they forget to renew their lease before the 80 year mark. The cost to develop the land needs to justify the development. If I spent $500k to build a house on the land, I would like to be able to use that house for as long as the house exists (or I sell it to re-coop the investment). Many people are really bad at saving properly, but they will pay their mortgage. Landownership enables at least some old people to have a cushion in retirement.
  - Giefo6ah 2mo ago
    You're mixing a house as personal property with the much broader claim of private property on land. It is possible to protect those two uses you mentioned, and other reasonable uses of land, without at the same time spending state resources in enforcing perpetual, absolute, hereditary, exclusive titles on plots of land.
- FunHearing3443 2mo ago
  We may live in the same country or planet but that does not mean we inherently have any share of the land.
- marcusverus 2mo ago
  Motte: We all share the land! Bailey: The state owns all land!
itake 2mo ago
Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but who pays for the roads to houses in the suburbs and why is it the people living in apartments that don't use many roads?
- all2 2mo ago
  I'm not saying taxes are bad. I'm saying specifically that taxing property itself is bad. If someone 'owns' a thing, why would they pay rent to some landlord (the state)? I acknowledge that I'm indulging in equivocation by saying 'assessing taxes from property is essentially paying rent to the state'. I assert that the equivocation is valid because the outcomes of not paying rent and not paying property taxes is the same: you get evicted.
  - pandaman 2mo ago
    This depends on what you mean by "own". We have property rights, which are colloquially referenced as "ownership" but, by definition, these are rights and don't exist outside the state, which enforces them. So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours?
    - all2 2mo ago
      > So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. This ignores the Constitution and the acknowledgement of 'inalienable rights'. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...] In essence, the government of the United States derives its power from the governed, and otherwise wields no true power. The Constitution of this nation is written specifically limiting powers of the government, and not enumerating the rights of the people. > If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours? Yes. This is where the second and fourth amendments to the constitution are important. True sovereignty (not in the sense of that 'sovereign citizen' nonsense) comes with martial ability; that is, the right to take another life. Sovereignty is necessarily paired with 'power', as without it, there isn't any true ability to protect one's rights. --- All that said, I'm appealing to an ideal when I say 'property tax is theft'.
jandrewrogers 2mo ago
Property tax pays for maintaining the utilities and services connected to the property. If you buy land that is completely unconnected from public services, you will find that the corresponding property taxes are extremely low. I've had annual property taxes as low as $1/acre.
- FloatArtifact 2mo ago
  For context, mine are close to 3 grand a year. For plot, just big enough to fit the home and a little yard in town
BrenBarn 2mo ago
Sounds fine to me! I mean, it depends on how much the person owns. But I'm fine just saying "you own too much, you don't get to own that much anymore".

itake 2mo ago

I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs.

FloatArtifact 2mo ago
> I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs. That's a good point, and it's why I qualified my statement by saying under a certain income. You say high density as if it's a bad thing.
- itake 2mo ago
  Pros and Cons. I currently have an upstairs neighbor that plays piano at 4am. As a high density resident, I would like to capture all of the pros of having a smaller foot print, since there is nothing insulating me from the negatives. My neighbor in Seattle only needed 5 homes to convince the gas company to dig up our road and install a gas line down our street. There is no way the gas company had the money for that purely on the revenue they may collect from those 5 homes...

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]