Property tax is theft. Change my mind.
Posted by LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 507 comments

Posted by LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 507 comments
Moar_Donuts@reddit
In Italy, your first home is tax free for life. Buy it, light it, heat it, maintain it. End of story.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Nice. In America, buy it, pay taxes yearly on it, and when you die , they'll tax it again.
BrickBrokeFever@reddit
Aww, poor baby!!
Home-owner lifestyle = home-owner problems.
Sounds like you signed up for it, now you wanna whine about the contract you signed???
Are you telling me that there are - GASP -unfair contracts???
You should rent.
Top_Bad8397@reddit
Nice try BlackRock employee, rent will forever be more in cost than property tax + you cant modify or change anything in the house + random rich asshole comes and inspects your domicile randomly if they so please while aslo never fixing any issues related to the house + even if you keep the house perfect or even improve the cleanliness of the house before starting rental, they can kick you out whenever for any reason. Friend of mine got kicked out of his house so the muslim family who owned it could turn it into a vinyl car wrap shop. so no. its not better. point being, ESPECIALLY if you homeschool your kids, you shouldnt pay for property taxes as 90% of the revenue from it goes into a backwards ass public school system set up to teach your kids how to obey and not question anything while being fed an extremely political and biased view of the world and history as a whole. Then they come out 12 grade levels later with absolutely 0 financial knowledge at all, that has to be taught by you alone. arguably the only benefit of what school could offer them. Financial literacy and finacial independence and the values of not recklessly spending and racking up lifetimes of debt, how to invest and save and the different investments they could make and their benefits. everything else (except basic math and reading skills) is memory holed and disregarded while they work their wage job making scraps.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Actually inherited the farmstead, but they make me pay every year!
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
They should only be making you pay based on the rental value of the land, not the improvements upon it. It it truly is farmland, you'd actually pay less taxes this way as taxing the improvements is what makes the average farmer's tax bill expensive as the rental value of land out in truly rural areas is practically nothing compared to say, a lot in downtown Manhattan.
Admiral_Bongo@reddit
Same in Russia. And don't get me started on vehicle taxes.
Formal_Rest4766@reddit
It depends on what state you live in. Not every state has a death tax.
MidorriMeltdown@reddit
Interesting. Do you get a breakdown of what the taxes pay for?
In Australia we don't really have property tax annually, we have council rates, which pay for services and infrastructure in the area where your property is. And it usually has a breakdown of how much of the rates are going towards what.
Some of it is for road/street maintenance, including maintaining footpaths, maintaining bus stops, and maintaining trees along the street.
Some of it is for rubbish collection, including green waste which is composted, and recycling.
Some of it is for the maintenance of the sewerage connection.
Some of it is for maintaining local parks. The local council has been managing these funds really well, as they've also been improving many of the parks.
Then there's the emergency services levy, without which your house could burn down, you get injured, and there'd be no one to rescue you.
Depending on what part of the country you live in, it might be about $2k per year, or it could be more. I know someone with a commercial property who pays $8k.
And out of curiosity, I looked up the local dump fees, you'd be paying over $2.5k per year just to dispose of your own rubbish each week. That makes council rates here value for money.
link2edition@reddit
Dump fees like how much you pay to bring trash to the dump on your own? That isnt a normal thing. I have only ever done that for extremely large items that trash trucks wont. Weekly trask pickup is cheaper.
We dont pay for utilities like sewage through taxes, we pay a utility company.
MidorriMeltdown@reddit
Yep, you've got to pay to take your own rubbish to the dump... I think it's more of a sorting facility, and the public don't have access to the actual dump.
Water in is a separate utility, sewerage out is more of a community service, like rubbish collection, which is paid for by your council rates.
schwabadelic@reddit
Bro, I live in Missouri and they do that shit on your cars and boats too.
sayitaintpete@reddit
Sounds like it’s time to leave Missouri
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
I agree, taxing capital like the things you listed is dumb af; it leads to deadweight loss.
Taxing land does not, and it returns the value created by the surrounding community, back to the community (especially if it's paid out as a citizens dividen)
"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."
Source
https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf
"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'." ~Paul Samuelson
"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Vonbalt_II@reddit
Here in Brazil too, you pay taxes to buy it, pay yearly to keep your own property, pay if you want to sell/pass it on in life and your heirs pay if they want the ownership and the circle starts again, absolute bullshit.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
This is unbelievable to me that they put up with this anywhere. I can;t stand. I hate people who support property taxes the most. More than anyone else in the world i hate them.
Vonbalt_II@reddit
The scariest thing is that almost half the population here screams that we dont pay taxes enough and that's why the poor government cant fulfill even it's basic obligations despite Brazilians working almost 6 months per year just to pay taxes alone, they are batshit insane.
I "own" a house and a small ranch but i know it's just a lease in truth cause armed thugs from Brasilia can always come and take what's is mine and my family's if i ever stop paying their protection money and even paying they can always decide my land isnt fulfilling it's "social function" enough and they can take it anyway.
In Brazilian law private property has to serve a social function aka whatever the bastards in power decide is productive enough and for the greater good otherwise they can take it away.
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
WOW... And I thought things were bad here!
thegreenbike9@reddit
Eminent domain is only used in public projects such as building highways or bridges.
If they claim your land they also pay you a fair market price. People always complain it's a few % below market (depending on property) but it's at least within the range of true market value.
The government isn't sending around armed thugs to reclaim property from legal owners via extra legal means.
That difference is really important.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
except when plans fall through and they sell it off.
OJ241@reddit
We have that here too. Our government has no issue “claiming back” property under “eminent domain”. Which in essence is an admission that the government is your landlord
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
Tax land not the improvements.
You didn't create the earth and you sure as hell didn't create the rental value of land either, the community did.
Wouldn't you rather Noth have your labor and capital taxed and have that which generates economic rents (which by definition are unearned) taxed instead?
I guess you hate the founding fathers of the US too.
"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson
"Our legislators are all landholders, and they are not yet persuaded that all taxes are finally paid by the land… therefore, we have been forced into the mode of indirect taxes. All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right which none may justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public." - Benjamin Franklin
And Milton Friedman
"The least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of the land, the Henry George argument of many years ago." - Milton Friedman
You really should just listen to economists
"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'." ~Paul Samuelson
"Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land, are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them…. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. . . . [A tax of this kind would be] much more proper to be established as a perpetual and unalterable regulation, or as what is called a fundamental law of the commonwealth, than any tax which was always to be levied according to a certain valuation." - Adam Smith
"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."
Source
https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf
What this means is that a tax on land cannot be passed onto tenants, and the fact that the purchase cost of real estate is lowered by the same percentage as the tax, that means the initial purchase price is cheaper by the percentage of the tax; tax the market rental value of the land at 100%, you've lowered the purchase price of the land to 0.
This means the barrier of entry into the housing market (or for a business to own it's own location) is lowered by the same percentage as the tax, which means more people owning and less people renting. Housing becomes what it really is, which is a depreciating asset, and the value of the land (which the landholder does not create) goes towards the maintenance and improvements of the community. We get better land use incentives. Shifting our taxation off of labor and capital onto land is beneficial to all players in the economy and you've removed the incentive to exploit others for the simple desire to occupy and use a location.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Chaoticrabbit@reddit
Land of the free /s
msears101@reddit
I saw in America you rent your home from the government.
duderos@reddit
It's worse now with the housing bubble and property values soaring.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
Oh, you mean the speculative premium caused by treating land as capital instead of the separate factor of production that it is; you mean the speculative bubble that would be even worse if everyone in this thread that wants to reap the economic rents of land completely tax free got thier wish?
The very same speculative bubble is the literal cause of the very predictable 18 year boom bust cycle. Becuase as the speculative premium on land builds, eventually labor and capital can no longer afford the user cost of land and the economy crashes as a result.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-9601221/The-18-year-property-cycle-tips-house-price-boom-crash-2026.html
https://www.rbcpa.com/commentary-archive/real-estate-and-business-cycles/
Here is Harrison in an interview explaining this:
https://youtu.be/HhNLwcIaNJQ
Here is Foldvary explaining his Forcast of the 2008 crash back in 1997:
https://youtu.be/dSAHSPY7wUg?si=QQnr4mXsY6PgKtcW
Here is Martin Wolf from the financial times explaining this and even quoting Harrison:
https://youtu.be/dWbMHGjWubM
And here is a good explanation of how Ricardo's law of rent works:
https://youtu.be/kxvXzM1mBWo
As stated in the video: "we should stop paying twice to use the land."
tax away the economic rents of land and you've made housing affordable.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-a-land-value-tax-could-help-fix-the-us-housing-crisis/#x
"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."
Source
https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf
What this means is that a tax on land cannot be passed onto tenants, and the fact that the purchase cost of real estate is lowered by the same percentage as the tax, that means the initial purchase price is cheaper by the percentage of the tax; tax the market rental value of the land at 100%, you've lowered the purchase price of the land to 0.
This means the barrier of entry into the housing market (or for a business to own it's own location) is lowered by the same percentage as the tax, which means more people owning and less people renting. Housing becomes what it really is, which is a depreciating asset, and the value of the land (which the landholder does not create) goes towards the maintenance and improvements of the community. We get better land use incentives. Shifting our taxation off of labor and capital onto land is beneficial to all players in the economy and you've removed the incentive to exploit others for the simple desire to occupy and use a location.
Active-Jack5454@reddit
That's not even true for most Americans. Very ignorant.
HornetCapital8729@reddit
Is Italy hiring?
Euphoric-Meal@reddit
What happens if you sell it and buy a different one, but still have only one house?
gamblingPharmaStocks@reddit
Still don't pay taxes. Also, if you hold it more than 5 years you don't pay capital gains on the house.
In general taxes in Italy are extremely high. It is just in the case of houses that things are a a bit better.
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
the low taxes on housing has to be made up by high taxes elsewhere. It's just a trade off.
gamblingPharmaStocks@reddit
Well, we could also reduce publicc spending. In Italy If I am correct is 55% of the GDP, which is too close to communism for my taste
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
Taxing improvements and spending(capital) and wages (labor) is socialism, taxing land is not. It's economic justice, and happens to lead to very stable and strong economies (looking at you Singapore).
"Taxation should be based on access to nature's opportunities, not on the ethical standard of a thief, which is ability-to-pay." ~Steven B Cord
"I rob you, you rob me, this is no way to base a society." Steven B Cord
"To prevent government from becoming corrupt and tyrannous, its organization and methods should be as simple as possible, its functions be restricted to those necessary to the common welfare, and in all its parts it should be kept as close to the people and as directly within their control as may be." ~Henry George
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
That's so fucking funny that this bot comments and hides this comment despite a quote from Henry George that is inherently libertarian.
Let me just highlight that for you
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
Henry George
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
🤣🤣🤣😂
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
😂😂😂
Kurei_0@reddit
Italian here, was thinking the same. The first house is your right to not live outside like an animal, no one has the right to tax that in Italy. It’s disappointing people in the US think differently. That being said the much lower income/purchase taxes somewhat compensate for it.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
That IS the compromise. Y'all have higher sales and income tax BECAUSE y'all aren't taxing the economic rents generated by the entire community that is capitalized in land values. Choosing 2 taxes that lead to deadweight loss over one that does not lead to market distortions.
"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."
Source
https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf
I'd much rather pay a tax on something that I didn't create(land and it's economic rents) than on something I or someone else did (labor and capital).
gotbock@reddit
Sweet. Now do income tax.
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
At least if you have no income you'll still have a house.
gotbock@reddit
Great. I have someplace dry to freeze and starve to death.
Gametester_Red_84@reddit
Grundsteuern sind und bleiben Diebstahl.
Dry_Presentation2718@reddit
Natürlich ist es Diebstahl! Du sollst etwas bezahlen das dir gehört, kannst du es nicht, sammelst du Schulden und Strafgelder, bis du dein Eigentum verlierst, so etwas kannst du echt nur in Deutschland finden!
arjun_prs@reddit
If you just own the land without building a house and expecting drainage, water, electricity and other utilities, then sure property taxes doesn't make sense.
samanthegreat@reddit
What an inane argument. You PAY for “drainage, water, electricity and other utilities”. To argue that a property tax is needed is a silly take.
jdubb14@reddit
Exactly…. You wanna live off the grid and don’t wanna pay taxes then go right ahead but don’t expect these services for free. smh.
rouyal@reddit
Utilities are free if you pay taxes?
Antique_Ear3724@reddit
You still pay taxes on property even if you are off grid.
jbird669@reddit
Most people pay for electricity, sewer, water WITH property tax. Privatize all of them, no tax needed.
ZEALOUS_RHINO@reddit
Not to mention roads, bridges, tunnels, police, fire, sewage, public schools, etc
HornetCapital8729@reddit
I didnt pay taxes on my old vehicle for a few years then when I got a new car and sold the other one I had to pay back taxes on it just to register my new car, and i didnt even own that original car anymore 🙃
KansasZou@reddit
A strong case can be made for taxes to exist on land. It’s a way of paying something to a society that didn’t have an opportunity to own that land. Aside from that, I’m with you.
GeauxWokeGeauxBroke@reddit
No. Only pinkos feel this way. I don’t want to contribute a nickel to you and yours. And if I need an ambulance, I’m good with it not coming. I’ll walk. But since that money is stolen from me, I’ll drive. But yeah- want no part of supplementing illegals ability to go to school or some such.
DonSimp-@reddit
I honestly don't see how that's a strong case at all. Can you elaborate?
matali@reddit
Can't change your mind, but I can tickle it. The national debt has now increased by $473 billion over the past three weeks, bringing the total debt to over $35.8 trillion.
Taxes will never repay this debt.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
I never consented to taxation to begin with. I am not responsible for this fucked up ponzi scheme all these statists want.
damn_dats_racist@reddit
You are free to move to the woods and survive on your own, but if you are going to benefit from the public infrastructure that the government creates, you have to pay taxes into it.
Antique_Ear3724@reddit
Guess what I moved to the woods and could live on my own but because I "purchased" the property I have to pay property taxes...... unless I illegally run and live in someone else's woods I'm fucked.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
"You are free to move to the woods and survive on your own"
This is a bad faith misrepresentation of the situation. I am not giving up my stuff to the state to go leave like a fugitive.
The government did not acquire it's land nor authority through legitimate means. I think you belong in prison.
"but if you are going to benefit from the public infrastructure that the government creates, you have to pay taxes into it."
Benefit is a value which is subjective. I don't agree that I benefit at all from this system. I am 100% harmed by it. The government is a criminal organization and you are one of it's supporters.
onlyonebread@reddit
Neither did anyone else. This is kind of a useless statement.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
This is false. I did. Many settlers did.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Their authority comes from violence, which where all authority derives from, in the end.
Don’t like it? Get good at violence.
RedVillian@reddit
Lol: the "git gud, scrub" retort to libertarianism
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
That's a very socialist way to look at ti. Following that logic stealing is okay. It's might makes right. Also I am never going to express on the internet the plans i have cookin. The organizing ect.
You need to look into economics and philosophy again.
raspey@reddit
What do you mean that’s socialist?! What else do you think authority is derived from?
This and authority has nothing to do with morality, if you have more power than the state or whoever is opposed to you stealing yeah go ahead steal shit if you want and aren’t opposed to it yourself.
buttcoincryptobro@reddit
Or move to a low tax jurisdiction like I did(*). Fuck the government
(*) US citizens nees to renounce citizenship
heskey30@reddit
You didn't consent to someone else claiming all the land however many years ago either. Usually by violating the NAP no less.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
Annnnd if you can prove in court that the land I had belong to another individual he can reclaim it. Not the collective of savages people called indians. If you can find an NAP following indian who hurt no one who owned my plot of land I would ethically be required to return it.
Not that hard of a concept.
XiaoDaoShi@reddit
Property taxes are paid to your county, not the federal government.
mjhs80@reddit
Probably because the US doesn’t levy property taxes…they’re levied by local governments and/or the states. Theoretically they are to pay for the protection of your property+roads+other local government services.
KennyBSAT@reddit
There is no national property tax. Property taxes pay for local services and are completely unrelated to the federal government.
pristine_planet@reddit
Yes. I just think that people fail to understand that not all tax is created equal, if we don’t understand then we can’t win.
iroll20s@reddit
They'll just keep devaluing the currency instead.
probablymagic@reddit
That’s around $90k of debt per US citizen, and it’s priced in nominal terms. Meanwhile our GDP is growing 2-3% a year.
So inflation and GDP growth cover most of this debt by eating away at it. All we really need to do to entirely eliminate the deficit over a 10-15 year period is to raise Federal taxes to about Jimmy Carter levels.
So we could do it any time, we just don’t want to.
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
We don’t want to because eliminating the debt would be stupid - it’s a very good thing to have debt
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Especially not property taxes….
matali@reddit
oh, that's even worse haha
Practical-Context248@reddit
Ask trump to get rid of property taxes. If hes really for the people then he will do it and find a way to make it work
beteille@reddit
Property tax is more like serial rape, it keeps happening over and over
KungFuPanda45789@reddit
I’m for a Land Value Tax (LVT), a modified property tax that only targets land value. Our existing economic system is a combination of capitalism and feudalism, LVT would eliminate the latter.
When you purchase a home, you also purchase the land it sits on. Land, especially land within a reasonable distance of urban job centers, is a finite resource over which existing property owners have a monopoly, and who get to charge people ever increasing rents to have access too. Property owners should be taxed on that. Also, without a property tax, existing property owners get to mop all the gains from rising land values caused by investments from the community and local businesses.
Getting rid of the property tax just adds fuel to the fire of rent-seeking that is weighing down developed economies and helping create housing crises. Also, part of why Florida and Texas suck less than blue states is their reliance of property taxes.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
KungFuPanda45789@reddit
Hi AutoModerator. “Libertarians” who are close-minded when confronted with the fact that land is separate from capital are not libertarians, they are neofeudalists who only care about aesthetics.
API4P@reddit
You shouldn’t change your mind.
Formal_Rest4766@reddit
Property taxes are used for funding essential services like public schools, road maintenance, and emergency services.
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
You paid for it with money that you earned, which was ALREADY taxed.
VV88VDH@reddit
😂😂😂 man….how are people not seeing this nonsense.
buxbuxbuxbuxbux@reddit
The bill for services required by the land owner from govt increases in time, how do you finance that?
berejser@reddit
This is r/Libertarian, people here don't think the government should run roads and water and electric and broadband and sewage to their homes, nor take their trash every week.
thetechnolibertarian@reddit
All of those you mentioned should be run by private businesses
berejser@reddit
So instead of paying an annual tax you're now paying an annual subscription, why?
MeowmeToribash@reddit
The right to choose
berejser@reddit
Because that worked out so well when it comes to ISPs.
MeowmeToribash@reddit
Well, ideally, the government isn't run by corporations, but unfortunately, that's how it works
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
BECAUSE YOU ARE CHOOSING WHAT SUBSCRIPTIONS YOU WANT WITH YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.
berejser@reddit
Nobody thinks that the current music/tv streaming subscription market is better than what we had before.
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
First off, what are you talking about Netflix/Hulu for? That's not relevant.
And yes, I much prefer subscriptions to streaming than I liked paying cable
thetechnolibertarian@reddit
Look the difference is simple. Annual tax = no opt out Annual subscription = opt out allowed If i don't want nor need something, I have the right to opt the fuck out
berejser@reddit
How are you meant to opt out of having paved roads to your house?
Pertutri@reddit
So if I want to have a paved road built to my home but my neighbors don't... Then what? I fully pay for it and then only I can use it?
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
Yes. Better pay for armed guards to ensure they are kept off it as well.
Cor_Brain@reddit
Sounds like feudalism.
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
It's called charging a toll to pay for your usage. Then private companies have to compete for your "business". Meaning there is an incentive to maintain these roads while also keeping costs down.
Pertutri@reddit
But then I would have to buy all the land that goes to my house so I can build my road?
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
You'd have to buy the land from the closest private road. Or work with neighbors to create a trust to build it. But yes, it's your responsibility to get to and from your own home.
gotbock@reddit
Except for roads, all the services you mentioned are built and run by private companies in my region.
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
Still has to be paid for, regardless of who does it.
berejser@reddit
Which region would that be?
gotbock@reddit
Southern midwest.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
I don't agree that the are private. Their is monopolistic controls put in place by the state and the state regulates them. That immediately disqualifies them from being private.
Try starting one of these businesses and see the hoops you have to jump through.
buxbuxbuxbuxbux@reddit
You're missing a couple of things there: the property right must be asserted and enforced, so police, courts and the democratic institutions must be financed somehow. Can't have those either in a world of no property tax.
Good luck building your utopia, not a libertarian myself, but I'm a fan of experimenting with various social-economic systems.
faustianBM@reddit
That's what the AR style rifle is for. /s
akcattleco@reddit
I'm on a private road, have a generator, private septic, wireless internet, and take my own trash to the dump, so do many others. Maybe just tax the city people!
berejser@reddit
It's not many others considering almost 90% of the US population is "city people".
Pertutri@reddit
What's your property tax bill? Do you get any other services like police, fire, schools etc?
gotbock@reddit
The one time sales tax collected when the property changes hands could go into an endowment fund whose profits are used to cover these services.
GuessAccomplished959@reddit
OR Homeowners could pay for their expenses ie. private trash pickup, private leaf removal services, private ambulance fees. You can afford that when you take home EVERYTHING you earned. And don't get triple taxed on every dollar.
ProCommonSense@reddit
And then you paid tax on the money you'll pay property taxes with.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
And then you paid tax on the purchase itself.
bkn95@reddit
and the amount of the tax will increase… forever
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
Yes, this is called inflation and is expected
bkn95@reddit
yes inflation is expected because its designed as a tax on future generations. and all other physical taxes will also continue to increase forever at a higher rate than “inflation”
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
Land rent IS inflation
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
I wouldn’t characterize in that way and taxes rise and fall over time, but let’s call it a tax on savers and pensioners, at least. If it’s a tax then what does it pay for? It allows for fractional reserve banking, giving banks the power to create money that businesses and individuals use to make capital expenditures that help drive job growth and the economy. One could argue the current success of the US wouldn’t be possible without access to cheap capital
bkn95@reddit
i see what you are saying. there is probably a large part of early american history where i would i agree with you. but, i think what fractional banking has become, and what it has helped create, is the single most influential system in feeding the powerful and robbing the poor
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
It also helps create wealthy and powerful people and institutions, so there will always be the “rich get richer” perception, regardless of whether the bank is actually responsible for someone being rich, but I do agree it’s definitely a system created by and for the wealthy and well connected. No system is perfect
bkn95@reddit
this is true indeed. i think the point i’m trying to make is that our current banking system seems to create corruption in an endless loop , so i tend to believe we should drastically change the system entirely. i think having a gold/bullion standard is a necessity for real currency
cbarland@reddit
Inflation is entirely different and the increase in taxation compounds with inflation.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
Yeah. we should stop paying twice to use the land
Orwellian1@reddit
The state keeps other people from coming on to your land and taking it from you. That costs money.
There are failed countries out there that are (pragmatically speaking) state-less. You can always try to acquire and retain land in one of those places tax free.
TheTacoInquisition@reddit
In the UK, you don't need to pay to retain the land you own. That's not a "failed country". You just...own it. It doesn't cost money for landowners to jusy be. The idea that you need to pay protection money as a landowner is silly.
mcnello@reddit
Not correct at all. The UK has two taxes that it levies on property (excluding other ancillary taxes, such as capital gains taxes).
Here are the types:
Council Tax: This is the closest to a traditional property tax and is paid by households. The amount is based on the property's valuation band (from the 1990s) and varies by local council. It funds local services like waste collection, schools, and emergency services.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT): Paid when purchasing property or land in England and Northern Ireland (with similar versions in Scotland and Wales).
Business Rates: If a property is used for business, business rates are paid instead of council tax.
kortcomponent@reddit
Try not paying your council tax for a while, see what happens.
TheTacoInquisition@reddit
Council tax isn't property tax. The resident pays, not the land owner, and you get exemptions and/or discounts if the resident fulfills certain requirements or sometimes if the property is uninhabited. It's not the same thing.
kortcomponent@reddit
You're right, it's a different tax. They would probably be ok with you not paying it then.
Orwellian1@reddit
It doesn't really matter how you pay for help in keeping your land. You are still funding the state to protect your ownership in some way. If you can edge case your way into paying zero taxes while still receiving the benefits, you are just that... an edge case. No system is perfectly consistent and balanced. You could consider it a form of welfare.
Dio_Yuji@reddit
How else to pay for the services that property taxes fund? (Schools, parks, police, fire, libraries, etc)
DeadAndBuried23@reddit
Who "owned" the land for you to purchase it in the first place?
Land ownership is theft. Land "belongs" to everyone.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
The land has been in my family for more than 125 years. Before that, I didn't know who owned it, but land does not belong to everyone.
ketgray@reddit
The land was not given outright, but granted, a big, big difference - to your ancestors. The government is allowing you to use it indefinitely and prolly forever, you can trade it, but you or anyone who trades it, don’t own it. You pay taxes on it which is rent paid to the government. Simple.
ketgray@reddit
Should add, the “government” suddenly arrived on this land and settled it aggressively out from under the existing indigenous population. So all this “land” we’re debating is within the framework of acceptance of our existence here on stolen land. Stolen by people, stolen by progress, stolen by population growth, greed, and survival. Not judging, just stating a fact.
DeadAndBuried23@reddit
Then it most certainly doesn't belong to *you.* Claiming ownership of land because you happened to be the creampie of the creampie of the creampie of the first person to "buy" the land stolen from the natives is bullshit.
ketgray@reddit
Yes. This. And - farmers get tax breaks. So maybe tuck a corner of your ancestral estate into a farm program and save some taxes.
DeadAndBuried23@reddit
Real shocker that some nepo baby with land that's been in their family for generations is claiming taxation is theft.
You "own" land because the government you reside within the jurisdiction of allows you to so long as you pay for being under their jurisdiction.
If you want land taxes removed, then to be consistent you should take no issue with losing the protections they grant you against someone else claiming your land.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Whatever you say. Property tax is a wealth tax, and quite frankly, many farmers aren't wealthy enough to pay it. No one should have to pay forever on what they own, that's ridiculous.
DeadAndBuried23@reddit
What they own, sure. You're not understanding the fact that a person does not and cannot own land within a country.
What you are calling ownership of the land never was. What you own is a promise to the government that you will pay to be on and its land in exchange for the protection it provides.
The issue isn't that you own something and are paying for it forever. It's that you don't understand what it is you own.
jasonandrea@reddit
Legalized theft. This is the reason we need to abolish so many bureaucrats
vzierdfiant@reddit
Ruling the entire world costs money. Pax Americana aint cheap, you brokies. If you want shitty and cheap stuff, go to africa lol, in america, we’re building empires. Of all people, you libertarians should know that “in order to make money, you gotta spend money”
dem676@reddit
I am not sure you ACTUALLY want an answer here, but here you go.
Thomas Paine actually addressed this in Agrarian Justice (1797), although the context was a bit different. Since land is not an infinite resource, but it is a major source of wealth, those who own land do so at the expense of those who do not. As such, you owe compensation to those who do not own land.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Interesting thought. Thanks for sharing. As a farmer, I disagree pretty strongly, but I love reading other points of view.
dem676@reddit
Ah, then you should certainly read this, as Paine was writing when agriculture WAS the main source/metric of wealth. It is more applicable for farming than for people who say, own a condo.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
I will when I get time, thanks again.
CLE-local-1997@reddit
Lol.
You consent to property tax by choosing to buy property, in a society that makes you full aware that they will tax your property.
If you don't like the rules, don't join
Talon_Company_Merc@reddit
My dad explained it to me when I was a kid
When you have to keep paying someone to stay in your house, and if you don’t pay them, men with guns make you leave said house, that’s called renting, not owning.
Property tax is telling the American people we don’t actually own anything. We just borrow it from the state. Which sounds like a bunch of commie bullshit to me but idk.
b__0@reddit
But you’re paying for the services that don’t come with the land - trash, sewer, school, etc.
I agree if you get no services you own the land, but typically you’re paying for the services, not the land itself.
technocraticnihilist@reddit
You can pay for those things privately
Talon_Company_Merc@reddit
Idk about you but I pay for trash, use a septic system, and as a grown man I’m not getting much use out of the public school system
detectivepoopybutt@reddit
You're not getting much use out of the public school system?
Where do you think the doctors and nurses of tomorrow are studying that'll take care of you when you're sick? Or the engineers who built your car? Or the arts majors who designed graphics and wrote stories for your entertain on TV? Unless you're cut off from civilization, we live in a society and benefit from an educated population.
damn_dats_racist@reddit
The government enforces your property rights, i.e. everyone is aware of the threat of violence against any intruders into your property.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
The government violates property rights. That's all it does.
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
Every time you interact with a competent employee at a business, thank a teacher
Talon_Company_Merc@reddit
Fair enough lol
KennyBSAT@reddit
Who's going to keep the vagrant kids from damaging your property? Everyone benefits from schools, they're cheaper than jails and actually do good.
Zehta@reddit
Which would be a valid argument if the taxes were calculated based on the size of the plot of land, not what’s built on it. If own my home and decide to make an improvement that someone from the state considers a value-add, then they get to raise my taxes? Ridiculous. The services the state/town is providing didn’t change, the home did.
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
A large fallow peice of land requires few services. An Apartment block or factory built on the same peice of land requires more services.
Zehta@reddit
We’re not talking about factories or apartments. We’re talking about single or even dual-family homes.
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
Ya, but the principle is the same. They're all "improvements".
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
The more valuable your house is the more value you get out of fire departments.
Zehta@reddit
The value of my home doesn’t change how the fire department works. When there’s a fire, they show up to deal with it whether a home is worth $100k or $100 million.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
But the benefit you receive from your home being extinguished is directly proportional to the value of your home.
The resources needed to fight house fires are taken from people in direct proportion to how much they’d benefit from a house fire being extinguished. Same with police, someone with more property to be stolen benefits more from stealing being prevented.
damn_dats_racist@reddit
Yes, land value tax has much better incentive structure than property taxes. Taxes should not disincentivize improvements to land.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
EricReingardt@reddit
Georgists believe in private property rights but natural resources cannot be privatized without creating government. If libertarians want to limit government they will need to tax land as Milton Friedman knew it was the least bad tax and the classical market economists from Adam Smith to David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill said that the landlord is not the same as the capitalist and the landlord was uniquely positioned to find the public expense.
PrecookedDonkey@reddit
Then would you say that the tax should be adjusted to accommodate whichever services you actually received? The only thing that I have that isn't taken care of through a private company is the road going to my house. Taxes for the parcel of land, and use of the road going to it. Police and fire would be included as a part of the land charge. I'd say that would be reasonable, but I shouldn't be charged for power lines, sewer, garbage, etc. In turn I also shouldn't be told what I can or can't do in regards to those things as long as I'm not violating any current standing law.
akcattleco@reddit
Lots of us don't use or have any of those services
KennyBSAT@reddit
Then you probably have lower property tax rates. And those pay for the services you do have - city streets or county roads, fire, EMS, police, schools. You can easily look a your city or county budget, and if they're wasting money it's not hard to rise awareness of that and get new people voted into office at the local level.
cc4295@reddit
But I pay for trash and sewer too? And homeschool my children.
Spinneeter@reddit
The way I see it is that it is a local tax to fund the local things like: Maintenance of local roads, gardens, parks Local community building and other local initiatives And so on
Btw, dutchie and here the property tax is done by the municipality.
jbird669@reddit
All can be done better and cheaper by private institutions.
WhyIsTheUniverse@reddit
“What’s that, sir? Your house is on fire? That’ll be a starting rate of $750/hour plus water usage rates.”
jbird669@reddit
Ambulances don't work that way now and neither will fire trucks.
Why do you like gov't so much?
WhyIsTheUniverse@reddit
Ambulances fees can also be well exceed $2000 without insurance.
In response to your question, because institutions that serve the public interest should exist to benefit and be accountable to the public rather than shareholders.
jbird669@reddit
They can do that without being beholden to the government and via unnecessary taxes.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
One of the key features of roads and parks is that it’s very difficult to stop people from using them, so it’s very difficult for a private builder to recoup the cost.
jbird669@reddit
Have you heard of the PA Turnpike? Do you know what happens for people to use the road?
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Yeah there’s a toll, it reduces efficiency by making people slow down.
Would you rather have a system that requires you to pay tolls to use every single road?
jbird669@reddit
Yes, as 1) I don't use every road and 2) I hate taxes
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Your ideology is getting in the way of efficiency.
Would you rather have for profit fire departments too?
jbird669@reddit
Where I grew up, we had a volunteer FD that was funded by citizen donations and private grants. I prefer that.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
What do you mean private grants?
And what happens if there isn’t enough money?
jbird669@reddit
Private organizations and philanthropic groups provided everything they needed.
That wasn't the case where I grew up.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Why is that better? Like, why is it good to give people the choice not to contribute to something that they benefit from?
jbird669@reddit
Given that public schools teach to the test and don't prepare kids for life, I'd rather we encourage competition.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
But how would funding them solely through voluntary donations achieve that goal?
And again, why is it better that public services be funded through donations instead of taxes?
jbird669@reddit
I wouldn't fund schools via voluntary donations.
Taxation is theft, that's why! Unlike Europe, we get little to no benefit from our taxes. I'm in PA. We have some of the worst roads in the nation, kids come out of school unable to do basic daily tasks and again, police are now revenue collectors. If they knew they wouldn't get money automatically, they'd all be forced to do better.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
So you think reducing the money that schools get will improve how they teach kids?
jbird669@reddit
No, I want competition. If public school isn't cutting, let's use vouchers to get kids into schools that don't "teach to the test" and actually help kids learn.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Why do you think public schools aren’t cutting it?
I’m into good outcomes, some things are better done by governments, like police, fire, roads, while other things are better done by private enterprise, like manufacturing cars or writing software.
jbird669@reddit
Everything is done better by private enterprise.
Are you serious? I've laid out why in previous posts, some directly to you!
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
How would a private police force work, would they only answer 911 calls to people who’ve paid a subscription? Would they arrive faster to people who pay extra?
You said public schools teach to a test, why do they teach to a test? And why is teaching to a test bad? My high school taught to the AP tests and I nailed them and got to skip calculus and physics.
jbird669@reddit
Ah I get it now: you're not American. Your posts make more sense now. The police would work like Ambulances now do here. They will arrive, do their job and you get a bill later. Only unlike now, where some cities tell you not to call the cops for certain crimes (https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/suffer-these-crimes-in-oakland-dont-call-the-cops/2095121/) these cops would arrive for any calls.
As for your second paragraph: you must not be American. Federal funding for schools is, since George W Bush, tied to how they perform on state school assessment tests. My friend, who is a teacher in PA, had to attend a 3-day seminar before his first school year to learn how to teach so kids could pass the state assessment tests.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
lol, I am American, not everyone who doesn’t understand your ideology is a foreigner.
A private police force that is paid only when called would have no reason to prevent crime. Why patrol neighborhoods deterring crime when you’re paid to respond to crimes?
I went to an American public school, and I got a stellar education because it was extremely well funded. They taught to the test, as in, they taught me how to do math and read, I don’t understand your beef with those tests. Your friend had to take a seminar about how to best teach their students, why is that a bad thing? Personally, I do agree it’s dumb to withhold funding from schools because their students do poorly on standardized tests, but that’s not a problem with the concept of public schools, it’s a problem with our specific implementation.
jbird669@reddit
1) You're not reading it correctly. It's not a seminar to best teach the students so the kids learn. They tell the teachers how to get the kids to pass standardized tests. That's all they care about. No Child Left Behind could be repealed, but it's not going to be. So let's bring competition in, as that is where innovation and ideas that help make things better come from.
2) The Ambulance example is one way that a private force could be used. I could see a neighborhood or HOA, in its fees, include a police prevention program that allows them to function how they do now. How is corruption handled now? Internal Affairs. I don't see that changing.
3) If you're not a Libertarian, why are you here?
ospfpacket@reddit
Whole heartedly agree, why are taxes implemented on owned property it’s theft.
veerKg_CSS_Geologist@reddit
In many communists States you don't own the land, you just lease it. Sounds like the same system in America, though it's called something different.
damn_dats_racist@reddit
In exchange for taxes to the government, the government protects your property rights.
If someone was to come to your house with a gun and force you out of your home and take it over, you would expect the government to show up and force them out. Why should they do that for free?
Even if you personally don't want that protection, most property owners do and the government recognizes and protects everyone's property rights.
Jentleman2g@reddit
This would be a lovely argument if there weren't tons of ways that state and federal governments nickel and dime citizens to fund everything. Also, weren't there police officers who enforced property rights before the implementation of property tax? Weird how that works.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Those police were paid with a different tax, it’s all taxes in the end.
YodaCodar@reddit
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
- communist manifesto
tonyMEGAphone@reddit
Perfect way to describe it. It's the bill I pay to keep the man away.
Friedyekian@reddit
Land tax is the most justifiable tax. Henry George will rise again!
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
DrCarabou@reddit
No one owns land, they pay rent to the gubberment
Roctopuss@reddit
Which is total bullshit. All these old people trying to make ends meet on SS, in the house they've lived in for 30+ years, having to sell because local governments keep jacking up taxes because "the market", which is literally taxation of unrealized gains. It should make every American sick.
Big-Anxiety-5467@reddit
Wait, what? Old people relying on the government for their support/government through a socialized retirement program is good, but paying taxes to pay for government programs is bad?
The_Elven_Jedi@reddit
Which is only possible because of fiat money?… if the money supply is always increasing exponentially, this is exactly the outcome we should expect?
Active-Jack5454@reddit
It would be good to tax land at its full rental value because you didn't make it and your ownership of it amounts to a state-granted monopoly
Roctopuss@reddit
🥾👅
Active-Jack5454@reddit
Says the guy asking the govt for monopoly privileges
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
No its not “the market” it’s just inflation, which is expected - I agree we should care for our elders, but wouldn’t your problem lead to a solution of more taxes to help support those who can’t support themselves?
crispyTacoTrain@reddit
Yep, don’t pay your taxes and you find out who really owns the land
ProCommonSense@reddit
I'm approaching the 10 year mark on my mortgage.
In those 10 years... I have paid 60%+ of the original cost of my home in tax.
The_Elven_Jedi@reddit
And do you still feel like it’s better than the alternative (of renting)?
I live in Canada and I’m paying about 0.6% (60 bps) of the assessed value every year. We have a very modest, average to below average house.
ProCommonSense@reddit
My house is considered larger by many standards, 2850 sq ft, situated on about half an acre of land. It's not a mansion by any means, but it features tile and hardwood floors instead of linoleum and laminate. The exterior is half brick and half vinyl siding, and it was built in 1961.
If I were to rent this house...given its location, size, and few amenities like a large garage, a bonus room, a formal dining room, and three bedrooms with two bathrooms...I would probably pay about $2,500 per month, totaling $30,000 a year in rent. My taxes are nowhere near that amount.
So yes, paying taxes is better than renting my house. However, taxes essentially mean that I am not only buying my house but also renting it forever, even if at a significantly reduced cost.
To be entirely fair, I paid about 65% of the appraised value when I bought the house, though I invested the remaining 35% into repairs and remodeling. Since I bought my house 9 years ago, it appears...if I am to believe online real estate sites...that the value of my home is now at least double what it was appraised at then.
Honestly, my view on property tax is that it should be time-based...let's say, over 15 years. The average time a homeowner in the U.S. lives in a house is about 12 years. For the most part, the revenue stream for taxation remains secure because of that 12 year turnover, but the system COULD reward those who decide to say, "I'm staying here. I'm a part of the greater gears and community. I continue to provide other streams of revenue from licensing, local taxes, income taxes, etc."
But in reality, what I can look forward to is reassessment that will never lower my taxes, and my "rent" on the property I own will only continue to rise...until I sell or die.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
That's horrible. Can I ask where you're located?
ProCommonSense@reddit
I'm in PA, USA.
bright_cold_day@reddit
Isn’t it used to pay for services that you use?
jbird669@reddit
Those services could all be managed better, and costs lowered, if they were privatized. Then a property tax wouldn't be needed.
bright_cold_day@reddit
Ah yes, because privatization leads to lower costs. And then, when the costs are lower because of privatization, a property tax wouldn’t be needed to pay for the privatized services that you use.
jbird669@reddit
Someone gets it.
bright_cold_day@reddit
Yes, that’s exactly how it actually works.
seniorivn@reddit
There is a reasonable argument, that due to land scarcity, land ownership is literally the only thing that is taxable in a libertarian society
msears101@reddit
Why not sales or use tax? For example gas tax to fund roads. Airfare tax to fund airport and air traffic control.
seniorivn@reddit
Its not a question of what it funds, in fact it goes hand in hand with the idea of basic income(by splitting tax revenue equally between all members of the society)
the idea is that ownership of resources of scarcity is inevitably unfair, even if there was a way to artificially distribute before starting a society of free people, newly born/joining members are going to be disadvantaged compared to original members that had a fair share of resources. And that creates a dynamic that can destroy main principles of free society, so single tax on the basis of resources of scarcity could be a solution.
Important to note that what to do with those funds is a separate issue, and libertarian take on it is to avoid central authority that manages it, regardless of how it makes decisions(democracy etc)
it could be splitted between everyone it could be discarded automatically(so you have to burn funds, not pay it to some entity) it could be a mandatory amount of donations to a strictly defined set of non profits/political entities
Top-Appeal-9653@reddit
it's not theft. it's armed robbery
mozaiq83@reddit
You essentially never own your house or property.
I fucking hate it and it needs to be outlawed.
ketgray@reddit
You own your house, not the ground it’s built on. That is federal land. You pay rent/taxes. Land is finite. Somewhat. Tell that to Dubai, with their man-made islands.
msears101@reddit
You are wrong. There are no federal property tax laws. All property tax laws are state and local.
ketgray@reddit
You are not thinking it through far enough. The Fed gives a charter to the State which then has (fed-given) rights to capitalize on the state lands with taxes (rent). Read some history on the land development of this country. States have rights but really only as far as Fed allows. State taxes are partially passed along federally at some point in some form. States are not sovereign. In the end, the land always belongs to the government.
mozaiq83@reddit
You buy the land. You don't rent it. Just like you buy the house. You're not leasing the land. Don't confuse the two. It's not the same thing. I really don't know where you're getting this.
I can literally buy a piece of land and own it.
Business owners typically lease the buildings they work in but can also BUY it if they want to own it. And then they in turn pay rent according to their lease terms from the property owner.
Federal land is state land that you can't touch or purchase(afaik). It's why they distinguish state land specifically versus land you purchase.
Again paying taxes on land I BOUGHT with the house on it is bullshit since they can take away the land I BOUGHT because I didn't pay the bullshit property tax they illegally charge me.
ketgray@reddit
Your taxes are rent. Go study financial history.
mozaiq83@reddit
But you actually purchase the land as you do with the house. There are other ways the govt can fund those services financially without tying a mandatory tax that penalizes you by repossessing it if you fail to pay it.
I can understand if you were leasing the property since you can distinguishably do so, but you're not. You're purchasing it. To me that's ownership.
Same principal with a car. I buy it out right, I pay a sales tax, collect it's title and the vehicle is mine. The govnt isn't charging me a yearly tax on it, nor will they take it back for any reason. It's mine.
BUT if I'm leasing the car, financing it, and not making my payments. They have the right and ability to repossess the vehicle.
Also thank you for clarifying the bit with federal land.
ketgray@reddit
You don’t own the land you drive on either. Tolls=rent. The government owns the land. End of story. You purchase your “lot size.” The government still owns the land. Otherwise why would a permitting system exist? You are not sovereign over your domain.
ketgray@reddit
You might like this book: The Secret Life of Real Estate and Banking. Phillip J. Anderson. Food for thought.
mozaiq83@reddit
I'll check it out!
ketgray@reddit
Point being, LAND is altogether another animal. It is not at all like a car. It is not created not destroyed. It is finite. Fought for in 1776. USA is not going to cede it to the general population. It’s basically a credit-generating ponzi scheme for the government. With 18-year draw downs/resets.
mspgs2@reddit
Does anyone know... in the US, do apartment owners pay school taxes? I can't find good sources.
msears101@reddit
Apartment owners pay taxes. Apartment renters pay rent that covers their landlords property tax.
KennyBSAT@reddit
yes. You can go to the relevant website for each jurisdiction and see exactly how much. Because most places have some form of discount or exemption for owner-occupied homes, apartments usually pay more per $ of value than homes do.
mspgs2@reddit
ah yes found it.. thanks! it was not easy to find and took some poking around. Looks like a good deal for apartment dwellers, at least in my county. One apartment complex i looked at pays a bit more than 10x what i do in school taxes and is about 200 units.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I believe the tax is still based on the property and its value. So indirectly yes (since the property is worth more with a high density building), but not on a per apartment basis.
msears101@reddit
I won't change your mind. I will say that the worst tax is property tax, then wealth tax, then income tax, then sales tax on used stuff, then sales tax.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
I agree with you - in that order, but some of the comments on this thread have got me to thinking about alternatives.
msears101@reddit
I am curious what alternatives have piqued your interest. Care to share?
Electric-Gecko@reddit
Perhaps one of us can go there and explain the Georgist case for why land value tax is just while income and consumption tax isn't.
Since they argue that property tax is unjust because they already paid for it, perhaps you can say that they would have paid more if the property taxes weren't there.
However, that subreddit had a far-right takeover awhile ago, and they put in rules to prevent brigading from "leftist" subreddits. It may have reversed somewhat, as I don't see the usernames that started that in the moderators list. But then, the subreddit overall appears very right-of-centre.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Living-Note74@reddit
At closing, you sign a contract to transfer the Title to you. The title has both rights and obligations attached to it. Taxes are one of those obligations. Don't want to pay property tax? Don't sign the contract.
Chance-Vacation@reddit
Property taxes are just a way to transfer wealth with little to no recourse from the home owner.
maaaaxaxa@reddit
where did the person you bought the land get it from? and where did they get it from it? does it not go back to a conqueror's claim?
maaaaxaxa@reddit
land is not made by labor. land is not capital. capital and land must be treated differently.
Libertad-para-todos@reddit
This is why people think libertarians are silly and don’t take us seriously. Government has to be funded somehow. Might be sales tax, income tax, cap gains, corporate, VAT, excise, user tax or whatever. Taxation is theft is a great quip but it does more harm than good.
LandStander_DrawDown@reddit
The Lockean premise of equality among human beings implies that no individual can own another individual, and that therefore each individual owns his or her own self. This principle of self-ownership extends to labor and the products of labor, including physical capital, so that the government should only tax wages and returns to capital under strict conditions, including democratic majority support across income classes. But self-ownership does not extend to land, since land is not produced by labor. The Lockean premise of equality then implies that human beings are in an equal moral position with respect to the benefits of land, the common heritage of humanity.
For one person rightfully to claim more than others of these benefits would put him or her in a superior, unequal, and therefore unethical position. To establish equal benefits from land, it is sufficient to establish equal ownership of its natural rent, which can be achieved by requiring that those who have exclusive access to valuable land pay for that privilege into a common fund through land taxation This is then not a redistribution of earned incomes from the private owners of factors, but instead a return of unearned incomes from the private owners of a property right to its proper owners, the community.
In a free market capitalist system, everybody has to pay the same for the same services; we can't have a system where the government decides that favored groups get certain things for free and that others have to pay through the nose; or even worse; favored groups are given certain rights for free which they can sell on to unfavored groups for inflated prices and to pocket the difference.
In a functioning land/housing market, the tax rate of property, preferably on just land, would be at the market rental rate for the ground rent of the property. By holding taxes artificially low, you are essentially allowing the landed to have a huge discount on a place to live and produce, while renters are forced to pay full market price. That is not a functioning free market, that is a gamed market in favor of a select few. That artificially low rent for owners allows for land speculation to happen which leads to market failure which is the root of the boom and bust business cycle (which intuitively makes perfect sense considering all wealth and capital is derived from labor upon the land).
"It is in vain in a Country whose great Fund is Land, to hope to lay the publick charge of the Government on any thing else; there at last it will terminate. The Merchant (do what you can) will not bear it, the Labourer cannot, and therefore the Landholder must: And whether he were best do it, by laying it directly, where it will at last settle, or by letting it come to him by the sinking of his Rents, which when they are once fallen every one knows are not easily raised again, let him consider." - John Locke
"Thus the form of assessment which is the most simple, the most regular, the most profitable to the state, and the least burdensome to the tax-payers, is that which is made proportionate to and laid directly on the source of continually regenerated wealth (land)." - Francois Quesnay
"Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land, are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them…. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. . . . [A tax of this kind would be] much more proper to be established as a perpetual and unalterable regulation, or as what is called a fundamental law of the commonwealth, than any tax which was always to be levied according to a certain valuation." - Adam Smith
"A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon anyone else. It does not affect the value or price of agricultural produce, for this is determined by the cost of production in the most unfavourable circumstances, and in those circumstances, as we have so often demonstrated, no rent is paid. A tax on rent, therefore, has no effect other than its obvious one. It merely takes so much from the landlord and transfers it to the State." - John Stuart Mill
" Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title." ~John Stuart Mill
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson
"Our legislators are all landholders, and they are not yet persuaded that all taxes are finally paid by the land… therefore, we have been forced into the mode of indirect taxes. All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right which none may justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public." - Benjamin Franklin
"If all men were so far tenants to the public that the superfluities of grain and expense (meaning "surpluses") were applied to the exigencies thereto (meaning "community needs"), it would put an end to taxes, leave not a beggar, and make the greatest bank for national trade in Europe." - William Penn
"The labor of the tiller of the soil gives the first impulse. That which his work makes the land produce beyond his personal needs is the sole fund for the wages which all the other members of society receive in exchange for their work." - Turgot, Anne Robert Jacques
"The earth, therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind from the immediate gift of the Creator. ...There is no foundation in nature or in natural law why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land." - William Blackstone
"The least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of the land, the Henry George argument of many years ago." - Milton Friedman
"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'." ~Paul Samuelson
"In terms of buying land, you would be entitled to develop it, yes, but to keep the ground rents, no. Buying shares of a monopoly doesn't justify monopoly, does it? You could buy a slave, but that wouldn't justify slavery. You could buy stolen goods, but all you bought was a bum ethical title. Only things made by labor are ethically own able, and last I checked, none of us made the land." ~Steven B Cord
"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Mervosis@reddit
Do you like dirt roads and outhouses?
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Well, I live on a dirt road and have a septic system of my own...
Timo-the-hippo@reddit
Space exists without human labor. You should not be able to own things that are not the product of human labor. Property taxes should 100% not scale with housing prices though since that is a product of your labor.
Yhwzkr@reddit
I once told a homeowner that taxes are the rent you pay for the property you own. He got mad, so I asked him how long he go without paying it before he got evicted?
S4DBUNN13@reddit
I can't, because you're right. even as a small kid i found property tax odd.
jpmvan@reddit
Weird how my property tax goes up just because the land appreciates or I do some renos to make it nicer. I don’t drink more water or shit more just because it changed value.
tommygun1688@reddit
I pay property tax on my vehicle every year in my new state... it's not a new car, it's the same car. It's not high emissions, it's a 4 cylinder engine with a manual transmission. I just use it to get to work mostly and be productive. Yet I pay $500 a year for some beurocracts to have unproductive jobs.
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Responsible_Owl3@reddit
Other people, using their own hard-earned money, build a train station near my land. The value of my land goes way up. Who is more deserving of this extra wealth, the people who actually contributed something by building, or me who just sat on my ass doing nothing?
ketgray@reddit
You
jbird669@reddit
If that train station causes disturbances to you on your land - noise, shaking of your home due to the trains that causes damage, they actually did you a disservice. And did you give them the okay to do that next to you? If they didn't ask you, they did something that harmed you and that is not Libertarian.
TiredTim23@reddit
Housing is a human right. Abolish property tax.
ketgray@reddit
Housing yes land no.
yadaredyadadit@reddit
The biggest theft is mega military complex. Get that, and all taxes will go down automatically.
wifichick@reddit
Military isn’t the issue. Watch IOUSA on YouTube - interest on the national debt is what is absolutely eating our lunch.
yadaredyadadit@reddit
Military is not the issue
How much did the 2 Iraq wars and Afghanistan cost us ? Just curious.
wifichick@reddit
Did you watch the video yet?
daisy0723@reddit
It just shows you can never really own your home.
You have to pay a yearly subscription fee or they will take it away from you.
ketgray@reddit
Consider medieval times. Living in squalor, no pharmacies, no refrigeration. You get stuck outside of the castle or city walls - maybe you don’t wake up in the morning. Hence government, and why you pay taxes - protection. But the land always belongs to the government, you and your “structures,” house or otherwise, are NOTHING - contrary to whatever you might like to think about what is really going on.
vitoincognitox2x@reddit
Taxes are a scam set up by big roads to get cars on the street
ketgray@reddit
Don’t drive then.
ndparra23@reddit
Taxation is theft. Period
ketgray@reddit
And you don’t use schools, sidewalks, fire protection, roads, ??? They appear out of thin air for you????
ketgray@reddit
You rent your property from the federal government. Forever.
write_lift_camp@reddit
“You pay for your land once”
Well someone down the ownership chain didn’t. They just showed up and said it was theirs. Then they sold it to somebody who eventually sold it to you. You didn’t “make” your land, you just bought it from someone that claimed it was theirs, which means there is less for the rest of us. Taxing it just makes sense.
17gorchel@reddit
There are people talking about the . "You'll own nothing, and you will be happy," quote as if it isn't already happening.
ozneoknarf@reddit
Nah it’s the most fair form of taxation. You don’t build land, you claim it or but it from someone that claimed it. You basically pay taxes so everyone else recognised your claim to the land.
Income tax on the other hand is quiet literally taxing your productivity and hard earned work. And consumption tax is literally just screw the poor tax.
mcnello@reddit
Ehh. I'm not an anarchist so I'm actually on with property taxes at the local level. Property taxes should be just that... Taxes that directly pay for the roads/street lights/infrastructure surrounding your property.
It makes much less sense to tax incomes to develop and connect other land owner's properties; especially the incomes of renters.
archbid@reddit
Anarchists aren’t against property taxes. We are against property. Totally different thing.
Anarchists want what you want - a good society where people take care of each other with low crime and general satisfaction. We just believe that property ownership and authority make that less likely, not more.
mcnello@reddit
You are an anarcho-socialist then, not an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-socialism is as doomed to fail as every communist attempt has been... Ending in the loss of many lives. You are just slapping a new label on an old failed ideology.
may_be_indecisive@reddit
They would make much more sense as a land tax. Property taxes go up with the value of the building, which has nothing to do with the space the land takes up and the services the plot requires.
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
Property taxes are generally based on overall value of both land and improvements - the value of the building on the land directly effects the neighborhood and the value of the neighboring properties - the building on the land also effects the services it should receive. A 711 would require increased road maintenance due to higher traffic, increased utilities as they require more electricity to run than a house does, etc
bjt23@reddit
The 711 adds value to the neighborhood. Property taxes encourage people to put single story parking lots on prime real estate since they'll be taxed at a lower rate. Government should not punish people for building things on their land, that's what property tax is.
alittletoosmooth@reddit
But of course it also pays for welfare programs and other bullshit that we have no control over in most governments
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Are you saying property taxes pay for welfare services?
mcnello@reddit
Ehh. In the U.S. property taxes are pretty much exclusively taxed at the county/city level.
There really isn't huge bloat at the city level. Are there some counties/cities that have bloat... Sure. But it's super easy to move one town over.
It's not a perfect world, but nothing is.
takomanghanto@reddit
Property taxes fund the system that enforces your claim to own that property.
troy_caster@reddit
Is that Steve Rogers?
ricajo24601@reddit
My property taxes have gone up to the point that it is making my mortgage unaffordable. They are taxing me out of our home. Sure, the value has gone up, but that doesn't mean my paycheck has, and we can't afford to sell and buy another house at 8% interest. Taxes are choking us into financial ruin. We were fine before 2020. We were putting money into savings, and now we have nearly burnt through our savings, trying to stay afloat on a lesser lifestyle. This economy is unsustainable, and the biggest weight is taxation of everything.
DisMuhUserName@reddit
I most certainly will not.
skorulis@reddit
If you wanted your mind changed, asking people who agree with you in a forum which downvotes opinions not following the party line isn't the way to do it. In Australia we have land tax and council rates. Land tax generally doesn't apply to your home and is based on the land value (not the buildings). Council rates pay for the utilities and are also based on the land value. I think that makes more sense than property taxes since it enforces efficient utilisation of the land.
archbid@reddit
What is funny is that you believe property taxes are theft but never contemplate where the title to the property came from.
Dangerous-Goat-3500@reddit
Just curious, what do you all think of setback requirements, minimum lot sizes, single family zoning, height limits, and parking requirements?
kgbking@reddit
Each and every form of redistribution is theft.
What is mine is mine, and I should not have my money stolen from me just because I am successful. The government and freeloading individuals should learn to take of themselves.
SomethingSomethingUA@reddit
This is why we need Land Value Tax instead, the fairest tax.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
crispyTacoTrain@reddit
Don’t pay your taxes and you find out who really owns your land
Pyrados@reddit
This demonstrates a poor economic understanding, in addition to the historical fact that all land was originally commonly held and the US government was primarily responsible for allocating land (including through graft and corruption). They also never relinquished their power of taxation (allodial title is a fantasy for all intents and purposes).
But as far as the economics goes, the existence of a tax on land lowers the selling price. The 'selling price' of land (which is also influenced by government mortgage policies) is the capitalization of future after tax rents.
https://www.henrygeorge.org/ted.htm
"Land Rent Compared with Market Value
Land Market Value is the land rental value, minus land taxes, divided by a capitalization rate. (1) Each of these terms is defined as follows:
The mathematical relationship is then:
Land Market Value = (Land Rental Value - Land Taxes) / Capitalization Rate (as a decimal)
Land Rental Value = (Market Value x Capitalization Rate) + Land Taxes
For example, assume that the land rent for a site is $1,800, the land taxes are $300 and the capitalization rate is 6%, what would the land market value be?
Land Market Value = (Land Rental Value - Land Taxes) / Capitalization Rate
Land Market Value = ($1,800 - $300) / 6% = $1,500 / 6% = $25,000
What would result if a larger portion of the land rent were collected? Let's consider $1,650 rather than $300.
Land Market Value = ($1,800 - $1,650) / 6% = $150 / 6% = $2500
If any three factors are known, the fourth can be calculated. The term land rental value can be used instead of market value, or vice versa, in the discussion of land assessment systems.
If only a small amount of land rent remained to be capitalized after land taxes were collected, land could have a lower market value. It would, however, continue to have the same rental or productive value to the community"
chainsawx72@reddit
Most places have an exception for the first x amount of value, say $50,000. This should be increased to cover the value of a modest home.
I'm okay with a property tax for businesses, since I think this might be the only reason one company doesn't own all of the land inside the US.
CigaretteTrees@reddit
You think it's okay to steal money from the tens of millions of land owning businesses in America just on the off chance some business might buy up all the land? Businesses that stockpile land already have ways to get around paying property taxes on undeveloped land such as agricultural exemptions. In Florida businesses will buy vacant land and while waiting to build they will rent cows in order to lower the tax bill down from tens of thousands to several hundred, this might be a vacant commercial lot bordering a mall but so long as the cows are grazing they get a reduced tax burden.
All of that is to say the businesses hit the hardest by property tax are not the massive developers or speculative land purchasers as they always have their "loopholes" rather it's the small businesses that struggle to make a profit, honestly I think there's almost more of an argument for exempting businesses from property tax and only taxing residential homes given the billions those businesses generate for the state in sales tax, licensing fees, wage taxes, etc; let's not forget that in most places nearly half of property tax is to fund schools which only benefits actual residents.
Perhaps there's an argument for only taxing businesses that own residential land but this would also negatively effect bonafide home owners, one of the most common estate planning decisions is to place your home into an LLC or trust in order to easily pass it to your kids and avoid probate. At the end of the day property tax is either theft and it's wrong or its not so we should tax everyone, if property tax is indeed theft then there is no justification for stealing others property.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
Police, fire, schools, roads, all benefit businesses.
When a business opens up shop in a town, they’re agreeing to the rules of the town.
I’m sure there are places in America with no property tax, if you don’t want a public police department funded with your taxes go there.
CigaretteTrees@reddit
I hate to break it to you but residential homeowners also benefit from police, fire, schools and roads.
“When a business opens a shop in town, they’re agreeing to the rules of the town”
That exact same argument also applies to residential home owners. Also vaguely agreeing to the “rules of a town” cannot be a justification for the rules themselves, if a bunch of people all came together and agreed to steal my property that doesn’t make it right. The governments sole reason for existing is to protect rights and regardless of how many people are in agreement about theft it’s the governments role to protect my property rights.
Also it’s interesting you ignored every single point I made except the one extreme counter example that I didn’t even support hence the preamble “there’s almost more of an argument for exempting businesses”, I was hoping to illustrate how stupid your position was by arguing the complete opposite but clearly I failed as every single point you’ve made also applies to the people you are trying to exempt.
Jackus_Maximus@reddit
If the people who come together to steal your property cannot or will not be stopped by anyone stronger than them, they get to steal your stuff, that’s how things works. Don’t like it? Shoot them.
_-Kr4t0s-_@reddit
I’m actually very much ok with this. No property tax on individuals who own residential properties, but tax both commercial property and businesses who own residential property.
Mikolf@reddit
What if your primary residence is a mega mansion?
_-Kr4t0s-_@reddit
Don’t really care tbh. As long as it’s your personal property and you’re not making money off of it (not even as a rental) then no tax. It doesn’t cost the county any extra money for your home to be there whether it’s 500sqft or 5000sqft.
googdude@reddit
People will find a way to abuse that, in my opinion there should be a value limit. Like say your primary residence does not get taxed for the average value of single family homes in your area, any value above that would get taxed.
That's the biggest problem with anything government related, almost no one has qualms about ripping them off so you almost need to have miles of red tape to prevent that.
_-Kr4t0s-_@reddit
And I don’t think that there should be any excuse whatsoever for anyone’s primary residence to be at risk of taxation or having it taken. Let them abuse it, IDGAF.
googdude@reddit
It's not John Q Public who I think would take advantage of it, it's the billionaires who pay expensive lawyers to find any loophole to not pay their fair share. You know wealthy individuals would buy up a large block of land, put it all on one deed labeled as a primary residence and have many rentals off of that one parcel of land. As with everything government you have to have limits in place because people will abuse it and it won't be the people that desperately need help.
As for it not raising fast enough it would have to be tied to some kind of property inflation calculator so it moves with the market, same way I feel about minimum wage.
_-Kr4t0s-_@reddit
The criteria are pretty straightforward. It can only be one property, the owner has to be a private US citizen, and that property can’t be used to generate a taxable income. What you said isn’t a loophole to this. I also don’t want a restriction on size because there is such a thing as asset rich but cash poor. The whole purpose of this is to protect your right to live in your primary home as a stable base no matter what happens to you in life. Even billionaires can hit rock bottom - look at Rudy Giuliani, who’s losing his home right now (for different reasons, but still). Everyone deserves a stable base to live from IMO, and I believe that if people are provided that stability it will only help the economy overall.
iroll20s@reddit
So half the people are still renting? If there is a limit it should be multiple standard deviations above average.
Mikolf@reddit
There is the opportunity cost where the land used could hold an apartment building and house 50 families instead of one. From a city planning perspective this has real cost as then people would need to live further away which puts more strain on public transit.
trahloc@reddit
1 rich guy can buy only so much bacon, even if they built their mega mansion on main street when someone builds that 50 family apartment on 20th ave the grocery store will move there and another mega mansion will be built where it once was and main street becomes mansion street. Cities change.
_-Kr4t0s-_@reddit
Mega mansions aren’t usually located near city centers. Even if they were, the city can offer to purchase the property and sell it to a developer like any anyone else.
Double0Dixie@reddit
What if you inherent your great great great great grandfathers acreage from 150 years ago that he paid for outright? And the value keeps climbing and so do the taxes.
Mikolf@reddit
Good, you should sell it. Otherwise land would be an investment that's guaranteed to go up in price with zero downside. You'd have oligarch families that own all the land and everyone else would be forced to rent. Your exact scenario supports this.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
"Most places have an exception for the first x amount of value, say $50,000. This should be increased to cover the value of a modest home."
It's not the collectives. Taxation is crime.
"This should be increased to cover the value of a modest home."
Taxation is crime.
"I'm okay with a property tax for businesses,"
I'm not. You are supporting stealing, enforced by murder and kidnapping.
"Since I think this might be the only reason one company doesn't own all of the land inside the US."
If you had studied economics and ethics you would know the government owns all of the land. Something is seriously wrong with you.
trahloc@reddit
Access to the cities resources could be considered a cost of business. Don't want to pay them, do business outside their domain.
This is no different than paying $200/acre to own land in the middle of the desert and paying $100/sqft/mo on fifth avenue. Access to people has value.
Being against the federal government owning everything so they can prevent homesteading and being against the concept of rent are entirely different things. I agree we shouldn't call it ownership inside cities, honesty in labeling it a license would clarify things.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
"Access to the cities resources could be considered a cost of business. Don't want to pay them, do business outside their domain."
If government had acquired it's land and authority through legitimate means that would be fine. It didn't. It's a criminal organization through and through. It has no legitimacy other than ignorant projection.
"This is no different than paying $200/acre to own land in the middle of the desert and paying $100/sqft/mo on fifth avenue. Access to people has value."
I don't consent to paying a criminal organization anything. Your point ignores my point entirely. In fact you have not refuted my point you are just pointing out why you think crime is good and works.
"Being against the federal government owning everything so they can prevent homesteading"
It's crime. of course I am against it. It did not acquire it's land nor authority through legitimate means. Are you lost?
"being against the concept of rent are entirely different things."
I am not against rent entirely. I am against someone stealing all the land under the threat of death and deciding to rent it out to everyone. Georgists create the system they fear. They are stupid and evil.
"I agree we shouldn't call it ownership inside cities, honesty in labeling it a license would clarify things."
If they acquire the land through legitimate means I don't care. The government is not that. No one would be able to own this much land without conquest. I certainly never would have signed up.
You are either ignoring my point or incapable of understanding it. Moving on.
trahloc@reddit
Don't use State terminology if you want to undermine the State. Their legitimate means is Right of Conquest. There is nothing criminal about that as there is no higher authority to appeal to. Unfair, unreasonable, unethical, despicable sure. Not criminal.
I'll ignore the assertion of your argument and simply say, you aren't a prisoner. It's illegal for many others to leave their countries, it isn't for you. Do what many of us have done and go elsewhere.
Nope, I simply don't agree with your foundational assertion.
Cool, I'm not a Georgist.
That's where we disagree, Right of Conquest is legitimate. It doesn't negate the claims of those they conquered but it isn't illegitimate.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
"Don't use State terminology if you want to undermine the State."
What? lol
"Their legitimate means is Right of Conquest."
That's called crime. There is nothing legitimate about such a system. It is an inherent violation of rights. You are rejecting rights so far.
"There is nothing criminal about that as there is no higher authority to appeal to."
This is how animals think.
"Unfair, unreasonable, unethical, despicable sure. Not criminal. Disagreeing with that is like disagreeing with an OF models ownership of their property because you don't like the means they used to acquire it."
There is an objective law that exists and has existed without the state before. This is all position and no argument dude.
"Nope, I simply don't agree with your foundational assertion."
You belong in the socialist subs.
"Cool, I'm not a Georgist"
That's good. Then start helping us fight the criminal organization you call government.
"That's where we disagree, Right of Conquest is legitimate."
'm glad you admit that you believe murder stealing and kidnapping is not wrong in your belief system. I think you are a psychopath and I've had enough. Moving on.
"It doesn't negate the claims of those they conquered but it isn't illegitimate."
The logical conclusion of your position is that the nazis did nothing wrong and nor did the soviets. It was all legitimate.
You are a bad person with no moral compass whats so ever.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
landlordmike@reddit
Congratulations, you just described a regressive tax. Residential homeowners, who are predominantly middle class and up, pay no tax on their residents. Lower middle class and below, who predominantly rent, pay for that property tax on "businesses" because a vast majority of rental units in the United States are owned by businesses and the cost thereof is factored into the value of rent.
Double0Dixie@reddit
What if businesses weren’t allowed to own property at all.
landlordmike@reddit
You might be lost in the wrong subreddit. Corporations are just, at their core, one or many people pooling resources to conduct a business activity. If you banned businesses from owning real estate, who would develop the big, high density housing projects our cities need to thrive? Comfortable middle class Joe Schmo with a $3m nest egg can't. But Joe Schmo can own a piece of a project like that by investing in a real estate business, like a REIT. In a land without businesses, if the project gets built at all, which many projects wouldn't, it would simply be done then by an ultra-wealthy individual as opposed to a business entity.
Double0Dixie@reddit
Lol at the whole thing, like what implies that I’m “lost” on the wrong subreddit? And even if they were not able to own the real estate property itself that in no way prevents them from building and developing. Lots of businesses do that already. Like you don’t have an argument here.
w2qw@reddit
Like communism?
Jerry_say@reddit
A reasonable response on r/libertarian very strange.
Fidget808@reddit
You pay for the property with income that is taxed, you get taxed at purchase, and then you get taxed yearly on your property, and in some cases on your income again. What the fuck happened to no taxation without representation.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Agreed, and taxes at death also!
rofasix@reddit
Taxes are the most powerful and corrupt tool used by the government. The tax code is used to punish earners, reward the workless through tax credits and pay back political donors through an endless stream of tax loopholes.
Gedgenator@reddit
All taxes suck, but Property Taxes may just be the worst of them all.
BostonFigPudding@reddit
Agreed. If you disagree with income tax you can work under the table. My friend's sister did this for years.
If you disagree with sales tax you can buy from garage sales, or at farmer's markets and pay in cash.
You can't get around property taxes, even if you rent because the price of rent reflects the property tax rate.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Why do?
Three_Rocket_Emojis@reddit
Nobody has the right to sell you ground on this planet - it belongs to everyone.
You cannot own this planet. You can just own a temporary right to use it.
eagledrummer2@reddit
Every tax is theft. As long as roadways are publically funded though, I mind gas and sales taxes less.
McGuire10514@reddit
Where does it say that you own the property? At the registry of deeds or something similar, right? Which is in a building, which costs money. And has employees that must be paid. Who drive to work on roads that must be maintained by people who need to get paid. Who have kids that need to be educated and fed and have orthodontist appointments in other buildings with lawns that need to be mowed with equipment that needs to be built etc etc etc.
Society is all a web. Libertarianism requires a willful disregard of the fact that it would fail as a lifestyle, philosophy and political system unless it is comfortably ensconced in and protected by a well-functioning and interconnected society. And property tax is just one of the many ways we pay for that.
The benefits of property ownership are huge, and the cost to society to restrict the use of a certain piece of land to the whims of one nimrod are far higher than the property taxes that nimrod is required to pay. So no, property taxes are not theft. They are an incredible bargain.
Both-Owl8955@reddit
Proporty is just what you have (possession over)/(have the ability to control) that control cost constant state resources.
DocBungles@reddit
And as the sovereign power over that land, I should be allowed to defend it with nuclear weapons if I so choose.
pristine_planet@reddit
Land is yours, but services are not free. If you own a land in the middle of nowhere and pay taxes while receiving nothing, now that’s questionable. If you own land with utilities, school, roads and all that, that can’t be free and that’s the end of it. Why would we expect something free, how libertarian is that really? Fight the municipalities and their ridiculous ever increasing taxes, don’t fight the property tax itself, we’ll always lose.
jbird669@reddit
All of that can be privatized, run better as a private entity and then property tax could be eliminated.
pristine_planet@reddit
Sure, but that almost has zero chances of happening overnight. Making municipalities cut taxes is the only way to eventually, go private. We need to think smarter, if we put it just like this, just fighting the tax itself, the idea gets immediately dismissed by probably 95% of the population. Politicians know that, they want people to keep posting these, it helps “their cause”
jbird669@reddit
Not expecting to happen overnight. It just needs to happen.
pristine_planet@reddit
It never will. I am showing the solution, if we want it to happen, the next solution is a civil war. I have news for you, what you think needs to happen means nothing to the world. But sure, let’s just keep posting the same stupidity and liking and downvoting, heck of a good job.
jbird669@reddit
I am working in my local area to help bring about tax reform you dolt. Miss me with your high horse BS. You want a frickin' war that you won't last a day in. GTFOH. You're not talking solutions.
TheKanonFoder@reddit
Agreed
buttcoincryptobro@reddit
Taxation in general is theft
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I understand your point completely and it’s a solid point. Property tax is essentially a fee for local services, how do you propose we pay for those services OP? Convince me of an alternative.
jmd_forest@reddit
The same way I have to pay for any other goods and services I actually use, in exchange for goods and services actually rendered.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
That’s not much of an explanation. Can you add a little more detail.
jmd_forest@reddit
Have you never purchased any goods or services?
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Answering a question with a question. Nice.
KennyBSAT@reddit
There's no chance tha you or anyone can afford to pay for the fire truck to come to your house when it's needed, and actually have a functional fire department. Or police or EMS or schools. But you benefit from the existeence of these things, even if you never personally use them.
Are you going to start paying tolls for every mile you drive down city streets or county roads? Admission to the city psrk and library? And on and on.
jmd_forest@reddit
We already pay for miles driven via gas tax and excise tax. There's nothing stopping users from paying for actual use of a fire truck, police, EMS or schools only if and when they are actually used. Disconnecting the use of a resource from the responsibility of paying for it simply invites waste and abuse.
KennyBSAT@reddit
These taxes (in the US) pay for about half of highway spending. The other half of highway spending comes from income taxes, general state and federal funds, and deficit spending. Which is why I specified city streets and county roads, because those are not paid for at all by state and federal gas taxes, they're paid for primarily or entirely by local propery taxes.
If the only payment a fire and EMS department received was from users of those services, any call would cost tens of thusands of dollars. Which, maybe you could afford! But your neighbor can't, so they say 'screw it, let it burn' and now that catches your house on fire. Of course that fire was started by kids whose parents couldn't afford tuition, so they stay home and goof off all the time with no chance at getting anywhere in life.
jmd_forest@reddit
Nothing stops appropriate amounts being added to gas and excise taxes to fully fund the roads in accordance with actual use. We already have private insurance that pays for fire damage and nothing stops it from including the appropriate fees to cover fire engines for those who might choose it. If parents can't afford tuition for the kids that they and only they made then they shouldn't be having kids.
Your entire argument is comprised of "I don't want to be responsible for myself so someone else should pay for me".
KennyBSAT@reddit
My argument is that I live in a society that benefits from certain essential services being provided at a societal level. My kids graduated from school, but I still benefit just as much today from the fact that my neighbors kids have a school. And from the fact that my paymnt for their schooling is spread across my lifetime so I can afford it. I've never called the sheriff out to my house, but I'm glad they drive down the rural roads around my house from time to time. I have a well and a septic system, the only locally funded service that's actually connected to my property is a little county road.
But without the county government (whose only taxation method is property tax), there would be no fire deartment, EMS or sheriff, no county road, no way to access my property without trespassing on other people's property, nowhere to record the deed that says I paid for my property, no enforcement mechanism to ensure that I can keep my property at all, and anyone could at any time show up with a bigger army than I have and throw me off of it. Seems great.
There is no US property tax, there are only local property taxes within the US. These fund local services with easy-to-review budgets. There's nothing stopping you from working with your neighbors to transition the funding for these services away from property tax and towards other funding sources, including implementing or increasing user fees. It's a simple local matter, and effecting change at the local level is much easier than at the state or federal level. Go for it!
jmd_forest@reddit
I recognize that people being responsible for themselves is unlikely to ever happen, at any level, at least in my life time. People love getting goods and services other people pay for and will cry and scream and protest for the right for me to pay for it.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
I'm a farmer, and we pay property tax even when there are no services with the exception of roads. I worry about the inheritance tax rate going up and preventing my children from farming, even though the land has been in the family for 120 years. I'm not sure of the answer. What ideas do you have?
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I’m honored to speak with you. 120 years is the family is no small feat (which I know you know). And you’re a farmer, so thank you for feeding us.
Im not 100 on what the answers are either. For roads, maybe a local sales tax on gas?That would only impact those using the roads, and the more you use the more you’re taxed. Also gets revenue from workers/visitors to your town, if you have any.
Maybe the tax is on what your farm produces? To cover those public services (fire, police, etc). And other corporations are taxed similarly? So if you just own the land, and don’t use it for anything, it doesn’t get taxed?
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
You're very kind.
A sales tax on gas is a good start. A tax on what the farm produces...? Do you mean a sales tax?
Some states ( sadly not mine) have agricultural tax breaks for land use. You have to prove that you're actively farming or growing crops/ livestock to get the tax break.
jbird669@reddit
That's a load of BS because you're some of the most important people in the world. THANK YOU.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Most on Reddit are snot nosed kids that do t really know what they don’t know. That’s all I’ll say about that.
As far as the production tax I mentioned, yes, kinda like a sales tax. But at the wholesale level rather than the retail level, for the land owner. I don’t know if it would work, just brainstorming. Like I said, it would allow property that’s not farmed to be free of taxes. You could apply a similar style tax to corporations in city centers maybe?
I think the tax break you mention is also a good idea.
You would know better than me, but from what I hear farms and farmers are always operating right in the edge of sustainability. One bad year is all it takes to end the long history you’ve been handed and are responsible for continuing.
May I ask what part of the country you are in and what you farm?
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Good ideas. I like them all. We aren't necessarily on the edge, but we are price takers, so we get what we get. Some years, it's not enough, and you have to fall back on savings. We're all land poor. In other words, the land is worth a lot, but it's usually never sold, just kept for the next generation in an ideal world.
We're in VA, farm mainly cattle and corn.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I admire what you do. Thank you again.
KennyBSAT@reddit
Every inheritance tax ever proposaed n the US has a carve-out for family businesses including farms. And you also have Fire, EMS, Police/Sheriff, and schools paid for in part or entirely by property taxes. You might never actually need these services at your farm, but you still benefit greatly from their existence
Somhairle77@reddit
Farming is one of the noblest professions there is. I can't find the quote, but in The Stormlight Archives books by Brandon Sanderson, one of the nations places farmers at the top of their social hierarchy ( and soldiers at the bottom, considering that profession only fit for slaves. ) One of the characters says something about Those Who Add being valuable to society, and those who only take away/destroy aren't so valuable.
LadyCurmudgeon2024@reddit (OP)
Bless you. Thanks.
jbird669@reddit
Privatize them and pay for them directly.
late-for-my-own@reddit
I propose a “services” tax.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Can you explain further?
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
Not by stealing. I don;t give a shit what it's replaced with as long as it's not stealing. You are not entitled.
Zakattk1027@reddit
I understand the general principal as to why property taxes can be beneficial, but the way in which it is structured is fucking asinine. The nicer your home, the more it cost you for simply existing?
azsheepdog@reddit
I suggest a progressive property tax. Your primary residence is tax free, any additional properties you own get a progressive property tax. Corporations like blackrock would have a pretty punishing property tax making it so it is preferred to not buy up the whole market.
TheOverGrad@reddit
this is the way
TheOverGrad@reddit
I'll take a shot:
There is an argument to say that *any* tax is theft. So I think isolating it to property is somewhat undercutting the argument. It's better to think of "taxes" as the way we compensate the government for facilitating our success through the enforcement of our national social contract as codified in law. Social contracts like "Don't steal" are only "laws" because (a) the government codified it and (b) the government enforces that code. This enforcement of this social contract costs money, and as the social contract becomes more complex the enforcement of it becomes more expensive because it also needs to be managed (e.g. what if two parts of our social contract conflict with each other? Who's labor will go into working that out?).
By this logic, the government provides a vital service, and needs to compensate the individuals who perform the duty so it can maintain its status. By this logic, if it were at all reasonable or possible, the government should tax us less on more different things because the social contract is pervasive: there is nearly nothing we do as citizens of a nation that isn't at least partially facilitated by the enforcement of our codified social contract. However, this is completely intractable because (a) it is very difficult to value many things, and (b) this is unnecessarily complex. If the government is owed 0.01% of the value of literally every single thing I do because the government's enforcement of laws makes my world 0.01% better, and that comes out to, for example, 10% of my salary, its far more simple to not beat around the bush and just pay 10% of my salary.
In light of this idea of reducing a complex fractional tax on everything to just a larger tax on specific things, it makes sense that the things that should be taxed are the things in our life that government enforcement most helps preserve. Salary is a good example of this (If you live in US or Canada, look at what your job makes in pretty much any other country in the world to see what I mean). Property, however, is as well, for three primary reasons:
For the record, #3 still happens a LOT in the USA. It is an open secret known to students that the off campus housing surrounding Brown University in Providence, RI is nearly all owned, legally I might add, by the Patriarca Crime Family (and their associates). If you don't live on campus, you rent from the mob, and you pay what they ask. Not counting companies, the largest individual land owners are John Malone (2.2 million acres in Maine, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming) and Ted Turner (2 million acres in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota). If you lives near these lots and you want to use land, you have to deal with these individuals no matter what they demand.
You may ask, "By that logic, what is the difference between government preservation of property and a protection racket?" The difference is that we have a say. Indirect and imperfect say, to be sure, but if the mafia tells you that the price for "protecting" your home just went up from $1000 per month to $2000 per month, you can't vote them out of the mafia, even if you convince all of your friends to vote with you.
Character_Example699@reddit
Property Taxes on buildings are bullshit. Land taxes are fine, and in fact the most justifiable taxation there is.
Land is not a product of anyone's effort nor labor. In fact, it's value increases because of the labor of people who happen to live and work near it. Taxing this stolen value is fine, it doesn't discourage labor or investment (no deadweight loss) and in fact quite laudable.
DilshadZhou@reddit
In most residential communities, the land is only valuable because of the services that surround it. Roads, emergency services, air quality, schools, telecommunications, water, and much more. Property taxes ensure that the people who benefit from these things are paying for them.
AndrewRemillard@reddit
Hmmm, if your house catches on fire, then what? Most locales finance public education via property taxes. What should be done? It is easy to be radical when there is no chance you actually have to solve the problems. Taxes are different all over the place. When I lived near Chicago, $10K a year was not unusual. Where I live now... it will take at least 6 years to pay the first $1K in RE taxes for 60 times more land. But then, if my house catches fire I am dependent on a volunteer FD with no fire hydrants within a mile. So guess what happens to my home. Their job is to make sure the fire doesn't spread.
jbird669@reddit
The volunteer FD where I grew up survived on private grants and donations. No property taxes involved. Given how kids are performing in school and just how unprepared they are for life, is that a good thing that property tax funds schools? I don't own a home but I pay a per capita tax, which is even more insane.
AndrewRemillard@reddit
Volunteer FD can be tricky. I have heard stories of those who didn't make a "donation" receiving no service other than protection to their neighbors who did make a donation. I am not sure yet how things work in my area, but from what I have seen, most houses just burn to the ground, which is understandable considering the limited water resources we have. I agree with your assessment of public uneducation! I think an significant expansion of charter and/or voucher system, thus creating significant competition is the only solution. The entire education system, from top to bottom, needs to be completely rethought. I was in school through the 70's, college and grad school in 80's. If I had to do it over again I would have baled out of HS when I was 16, take the GED, skip 90% of gen ed requirements in college (forget about an actual degree (worthless, less than worthless)), take the grad school entrance exams and be much more selective in regards to the classes I took there. Also, the Masters is a very expensive piece of paper which has meant very little to my life.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I’m interested in finding another way to pay for those public services. Do you have any suggestions?
AndrewRemillard@reddit
Your question contained the answer. The public needs to pay for the services it receives. RE taxes can be one of the fairest ways to do this. Expensive homes would cost more to extinguish a fire at, so they should have a higher cost. The wealthy receive a greater benefit from an educated population so they should pay more. The downside is very poor communities cannot generate enough RE taxes to support sufficient services. One solutions is to draw larger tax circles so that wealthy neighborhoods support poorer neighborhoods. BUT>>> I spent 40 years in a community near Chicago which went from middle class to very upper middle class in that time. I can tell you that this very liberal area had NO interest in supporting the education of the poorer community to our south, none! So, I am not sure there is a workable answer. If rich liberals won't pay, then I don't know what to say.
Mindblind@reddit
I'm curious: What is the libertarian view on property ownership. If I own 1k acres and decide to parcel it out. I do a 9999-year lease, and the renters can build pretty much anything as long as my inspectors make sure it's structural and in basic line with a vague idea I have for my 1k acres. Their lease can be sold at will. I'll have some rules and guidelines, but for the most part, it's whatever they want to do. I still own the land, but they "own" it because of the extended lease agreement.
If we imagine the US government as a trust that owns the land, isn't property tax just low rent on their land?
iroll20s@reddit
The big difference is you can still really own land in such a scenario. I could negotiate with the owner for an outright purchase or the market could decide that nobody is willing to pay for those leases and the owner is forced to sell. With the government there is no scenario in which you can own the land and not pay rent.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I keep seeing this example and similar, but the US government doesn’t impose property taxes. Those are all local and varried. I’m not sure I follow this line of thinking.
idapitbwidiuatabip@reddit
Land value tax is the best way. Especially when redistributing the revenue as UBI.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Poetic_Shart@reddit
Property tax is just fancy lot rent. You own nothing.
iroll20s@reddit
Only property tax?
CartNip@reddit
I can live with property taxes. It ensures the land is actually used for something like a renter rather than sitting indefinitely
aclart@reddit
Land isn't something that is created, it was always there, taxing it doesn't decrease the supply of land and cutting taxes on land don't increase the supply of land. Your right to a piece of land is a government enforced monopoly. Taxes on the value of land are a form of rent, you didn't create it, it doesn't belong to you.
Taxes on land should be as high as possible, while at the same time, taxes on the use you do to said land should be zero.
KansasZou@reddit
I don’t necessarily believe that taxes on land should be as high as possible, but I agree with the premise of your argument.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
I think you are both repugnant people.
KansasZou@reddit
More repugnant than using physical force to obtain a piece of land and then obstruct those unborn from utilizing it?
I am most certainly open to other ideas than taxing the land. It’s just the best way I’ve studied to do it fairly.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
"More repugnant than using physical force to obtain a piece of land and then obstruct those unborn from utilizing it?"
The crime is thinking you are entitled to other peoples shit man. You are a god damned land socialist. You are filth.
"I am most certainly open to other ideas than taxing the land. It’s just the best way I’ve studied to do it fairly."
Well just know. You are supporting crime. I hate you.
aclart@reddit
Why?
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
Taxation is theft. I voluntarily exchanged for my land. It's absolutely none of your business. You support crime.
w2qw@reddit
Where did the person you brought it off get it from?
IqarusPM@reddit
They will say something like they mixed their labor with land which made it there. I always found this to be such a low bar of ownership over things that are highly valuable. It’s the equivalent of licking all the cookies you like to own them.
w2qw@reddit
That John Locke quote also ends with "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." which they conveniently forget.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
Irrelevant.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
No I wouldn't. Homesteading principle. https://liquidzulu.github.io/homesteading-and-property-rights/
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
I bought if from someone who somewhere down the line homesteaded the land.
AR_E@reddit
It’s pays for (among many things) the public schools in your area. What is wrong with that?
jbird669@reddit
Given how kids are performing in school and just how unprepared they are for life, is that a good thing?
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
I don’t think there’s an issue with paying for public services. The issue is that it’s tied to the land, so non-payment could result in the loss of that land. Maybe we need another method of collecting that tax?
I_ATE_THE_WORM@reddit
Raising revenue is an unfortunate necessity for government. I think libertarians are better of pushing limited homestead tax exemptions based on population density/value. Otherwise, why the heck should Ted Turner be able to own 2 million acres, drive up property prices without paying any sort of taxes on it? The 1% will just start hoarding and buying up every bit of property if it doesn't cost them anything to hold. I'm not convinced being a billionaires tenant with no vote is better than being a tenant of the state where at least I can vote and petition.
jbird669@reddit
Privatize everything and then gov't won't need revenue.
Zachbutastonernow@reddit
Property requires a force of violence to exist.
Property tax is the fee you pay to rent their massive force of violence to enforce your claim.
If you are not paying taxes, your property claim is only as strong as your means to defend it, and I dont think your AR15 is going to stop a robotic war dog, drone, hellfire missile or a tank.
(This is also the case with all other forms of property, for example intellectual property)
Owl__Bear@reddit
They can also arbitrarily raise taxes at their whim. My county has raised property taxes by ~17% over five years.
Jean-Claude-Can-Ham@reddit
In the US, property taxes are local, not federal, and have nothing to do with the US government
probablymagic@reddit
I guess you could call holding elections where you choose representatives to set tax rates arbitrary.
Abby_Normal90@reddit
The land belongs to all of us, and you rent a spot of it, and own the house on top of it. There ya go
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Test_your_self@reddit
Water supply, storm water, waste water, transportation ect all need to be privatized first.
Solid_Flatus@reddit
If you don’t live in the city, it already is.
Test_your_self@reddit
Yup, stuff like roads and other services the local government provides will need to be privatized.
Solid_Flatus@reddit
Make it subscription based like Prime or Netflix. If you don’t want it, don’t subscribe.
Thencewasit@reddit
Isn’t that what the fuel tax is for roads? A close approximation to a usage fee for the roads.
Solid_Flatus@reddit
How is the quality of the roads in your area? From what I’ve seen in the SE United States, government isn’t doing a great job with road construction and maintenance.
Thencewasit@reddit
Well that’s a different issue. To be fair there are millions of miles of paved roads. Road construction seems to be fair, but road maintenance is difficult. And the fuel tax has not kept up with inflation, and it is also currently being undermined by the rise of electric vehicles.
Solid_Flatus@reddit
In my opinion, all of the issues that you’ve mentioned could be solved by a subscription service. Make it at a county level. That way the rural counties aren’t footing some of the bill of sprawling metropolises.
w2qw@reddit
What's the difference between that and the current system?
SavageFractalGarden@reddit
The difference is that you would only pay for the services you actually use
w2qw@reddit
That makes sense for some services and arguably those shouldn't be government functions but for things like local roads, police etc there's no real meaningful way to divide them up. Plenty of other things like electricity, water, sewage have significant fixed costs regardless of whether or not you actually use them.
SavageFractalGarden@reddit
Everything can be privatized. We already pay for it now through taxes, so if anything we would be paying less since we wouldn’t be forced to subscribe to services we don’t want or need.
w2qw@reddit
Without police that would definitely be possible. The issue with things like local roads is the sky is the limit in what they could charge for use of them.
SavageFractalGarden@reddit
Police can also be privatized
BakaDasai@reddit
Not at all. People who drive cars use far more road space and create far more wear and tear on roads than peple who use other forms of transport. Even taking fuel tax into account, road funding is wealth-distribution from non-drivers to drivers.
SavageFractalGarden@reddit
I’ve been saying this for years. All “public” services should become private and paid for with subscriptions
jkovach89@reddit
Even if you do...
AR_E@reddit
Terrible idea. All public services will become profit making ventures eventually costing your way more than property taxes.
Solid_Flatus@reddit
I think the free market would provide a solution for this. Competition between companies would keep prices lower.
JaxsonJohn@reddit
Hilarious how there is literally a boomer in the picture. Gonna throw out your back pulling that ladder up any quicker.
Apprehensive-Fix-746@reddit
Yeah property tax is stupid, why should you pay tax for improving land? Just tax the land itself and let the free market decide who best manages it!
Trackspyro@reddit
Property tax pays for the public services of your community. What is a replacement to funding those services? Inevitably, poor neighborhoods won't be profitable enough to pay for it individually. What if we receive a breakdown of where our tax money is being spent?
KennyBSAT@reddit
Property taxes are local - county, city, school district, etc. All of these entities publish planned and actual budgets, and you can see exactly where everything is spent.
blackravensail@reddit
Taxes on land are just. No one should get a right to gait keep a natural resource from the public without just compensation for the public. Taxes on improvements are unjust because they confiscate the product of labor, and taxing labor is effectively socialized slavery.
Crazy_names@reddit
Ok. I'm don't want to be the pro-tax guy because I'm not. But property tax, it any, are kind of the only one that makes sense to me. In my mind, and without any historical backing so let's go ahead and put that out there, property taxes go back to European traditions of taxes levied by nobility to subordinate manor lords who worked the land and coughed up a portion of theor yield either in coin or goods to support the functions of the government e.g. the army, the kings guard & servants, etc. In a modern sense property taxes should go to those essential services of local governance e.g. police, fire, EMS, city clerks, judges, and maintenance of city assets like vehicles, buildings, etc. The process for levying those taxes should be public (open to public debate), transparent (line items annually when you get your tax bill), and accountable (local media making the public aware of how/when public funds are not being used responsibly.
I don't know if that changes anyone's mind but maybe puts it in perspective a bit. If one wants to propose a more privatized approach I am open to it, I am just saying that is the system we (supposedly) live in. It makes one wonder if I'm paying property taxes then why am i paying all these other taxes?
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
So we could make all taxes based on property and its value, and do away with income taxes? Interest thought experiment. Lots of ways to access value to the property dependent on its uses and density.
BakaDasai@reddit
Just tax the land value, independent of what gets built on that land. If you own a block of empty land and then build a 20-storey building on it your land tax shouldn't increase.
The flip side of that is land tax should be high and replace most other taxes. It's better than taxing income or consumption or profits. We want to incentivise economic activity, and simultaneously encourage efficient land use cos land is the one thing we can't make more of.
may_be_indecisive@reddit
Why tax someone’s wealth? Just tax the land the property is on. Make it exorbitant. But it doesn’t go up because you change your kitchen cabinets or add a new room, or even an additional family that pays you rent.
Background-Ad7876@reddit
A single land value tax is actually the only tax that makes sense
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Yosemite_sam2505@reddit
Which reminds me where are all the friggin bins!! It’s like 10km between bins I know terrorism but a bigger bomb would solve that problem I think it’s an excuse to have fewer trucks on the road and more used nappies idk🤷♂️🤷♀️🤦🏼♀️
tocano@reddit
Donald Rainwater, running for Governor in Indiana is proposing a step to get there: a sales tax of 1% of the sales price of the property for just 7 years (7% paid in total).
Darmin@reddit
While I don't like any tax, since we can't just wish away the state, what would be the least immoral tax? Sales?
I like that property taxes are kept more local. Not that I like property tax, just that it almost always stays in your neighborhood at least. But that could be done the same for any other tax.
LyleSY@reddit
It depends on how you are thinking about them. The classic three things to worry about are equity (does this tax the poor or the rich more as a percent of income), efficiency (how expensive/possible to collect), and distortionary (how much does this tax warp behavior). Holding all three together, employment taxes look really bad, most taxes like sales and property and income taxes look pretty bad, and a few things that reduce pollution or waste like congestion fees, pollution pricing, and land tax can be net positive.
akcattleco@reddit
You don't own property in the US, it's a lease without an expiration date that can be passed down to your heirs.
nthn82@reddit
Here’s another angle. It’s also used to keep education for certain areas underfunded and underserved. Those areas are largely poc. A lot of this crap is race initiated and still affects us all n 2024.
Acta_Non_Verba_1971@reddit
Can you explain that a little more deeply? I’m not sure I’m following?
Fetz-@reddit
I consider myself a libertarian georgist.
In my opinion income taxes should be abolished, because income taxes punish people for being productive.
At the same time I think property taxes are good, because it prevents the hoarding of land in the hands of the few, because it would be uneconomical to do so.
Land taxes force land owners to efficiently use their land or to sell it to someone else who has a better use for that land.
That way the whole society benefits.
AutoModerator@reddit
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 if you have any questions or concerns.
Kristoforas31@reddit
Property taxes as they exist today are bad, as they tax the value of the building and other improvements. The production of the building and the improvements should not be taxed either, i.e. pretty much all taxes including income and sales taxes should be abolished.
Landowners owe the community a ground rent for their claim to an exclusive use of a location on this planet Earth. No-one made the Earth, it has been given to us collectively. Landowners who pay an annual ground rent to the community based on the rental value of the location should then be protected in whatever peaceful use they may decide for that location.
SgtJayM@reddit
I’ve always agreed with this. Under the current system of property tax the only person in the world that owns anything is the king of England.
Meursault_Insights@reddit
America is just contemporary serfdom. Continuous effortless mindless entertainment and a few entry-level luxury items and people stop reflecting on the guy with his hands in your pocket always and forever.
MikesHairyMug99@reddit
It’s a tx on unrealized gains AND a frigging lease from the govt.
springboks@reddit
Taxation is theft!
from_the_Luft@reddit
A counter argument I’ve thought of recently. If there was no property taxes and no pay to stay. What would stop a massive corporation from buying up as much land as possible and hoarding from the public? Or leasing it out to citizens to build a house?
iRedditFromBehind@reddit
You're paying for the property which means you are paying the government not to stop you from using the land. The government still owns the land because all a government is is the entity of the land and you are reserving for yourself a piece of it as long as it says it's alright. Then because that's the only way to "own" land - land is free and cannot be owned, only occupied - the entity that is our government, which is capitalistic in nature, charges a subscription to retain that reservation on the land on an annual basis. A subscription, just like Adobe and Microsoft and online games and Netflix all do, to continue using the service (reservation of your space in their ecosystem).
mrsaltpeter@reddit
In the Netherlands they’ve got a thing called ‘erfpacht’, which means you buy your house and pay taxes on it, but you don’t own the ground. You have to pay an annual fee to the city for the ground that your house is on (and then pay taxes on your house).
wabbott82@reddit
Who owns the property? The citizen or the state?
telcodan@reddit
The first house I bought was in 2002. The neighborhood was one of the oldest in the city I lived in. It has not been reassessed since 1943. I paid $75/yr in property tax. I kept that house for 7 years until I had to move for work. The year I sold it, the city realized that they had ignored that neighborhood for too long and reassessed the area. The new amount was $2500/yr.
iJayZen@reddit
And then you have to pay monies to the education and police mafias...
Stiks-n-Bones@reddit
Cannot disagree.
Also note that income tax was instituted in the United States 1913 by Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat. We cannot forget, lest we become frogs in a pot slowly heating to a boil. Gen X and younger have no memory of a country without income tax. They think it's a given and normal and necessary.
Income tax is theft, property tax is theft. I can agree with taxes on goods and services at purchase, but leave what I have earned and own alone.
rojowro86@reddit
This assumes your acquisition of land was just in the first place and that whoever you bought it from justly acquired it. Locke has a semi decent response, but it’s got issues.
Perfect-Resort2778@reddit
All tax is theft. They are literally confiscating your money.
dreamache@reddit
taxation is theft. Fixed it for ya
AdrienJarretier@reddit
Yep, all taxes are theft, all taxes are taxes on property. Homes aren't the only properties.
duchemeister@reddit
Private Property AND taxation is theft 🔥 So it cancels out... 😁
AdrienJarretier@reddit
Private property is theft ?
Who did your steal your body from ?
Yes, your body is your private property. If you disagree then let me introduce you to : slavery, forced labour camps, sex traffickers, rapists.
Did I miss anything ?
Besides, the argument that taxes are theft requires the concept of property, you can't define property as theft or you'd have a circular argument.
I make no special distinction between property and private property. "public" property is an oxymoron, if somethings is "public" then it doesn't belong to anyone, it's not property. Only by sophistry and the state threat and physical violence is "public property" a thing, but it's not philosophically consistent.
Orwellian1@reddit
Better to say both "ownership" and "taxation" are artificial constructs, like nearly every aspect of human society.
People keep looking for fundamental philosophical truths when dealing with human society as if there is some outside authority. It indicates shallow thinking. The universe wont certify your belief system as correct. Everyone is just arguing their made up rules are more better than someone else's made up rules.
AdrienJarretier@reddit
Property is found in the entire animal kingdom, it's not unique to human societies.
Try to stick your hand in a beehive, or walk in a bear's cave and tell them "guys don't worry, your territory is just an artificial construct, there's no truth to it". When the bear eats you, If that's not the universe certifying your beliefs are wrong, I don't know what more you'd want from the universe.
Yes at some level it's true, we have concepts in our minds, we do make up simpler things to explain what we observe, we model the world and use concepts-ecompassing words to communicate. It doesn't mean there are no truth. We can observe a behaviour from all animals protecting either themselves, themselves + their territory, or themselves + their pack, or all of the abobe. And we call that behaviour "property protection", we use the concept of property to talk about the model these animals, including humans, have in their heads of what things they need/have to/want to protect and keep for themselves.
Property is not an arbitrary rule dreamt up by humans, it's a concept associated with animal behaviour. And since humans are animals too this is really not that surprising, we fit the theroy very nicely, we too have territory behavior, self-preservation mechanisms, the concept of pack or, as we call it, family (insert dom toretto pic).
Orwellian1@reddit
There is no sanctity of property in biology. There is what you can hold. Do you think a wolf pack is thinking about ownership and rights??? No. They want to protect their food supply. That is where territorialism derives. If an animal runs across an area that is cooler than their current area, they don't restrain themselves because it "isn't their property". If they can take it and hold it, they do.
Property and ownership are human constructs.
AdrienJarretier@reddit
Ok well I just explained to you what we mean by "property", the concept associated with a behaviour, and you just answered "nuh uh !".
Yes, property is a construct, like everything else.
What do you mean by "their food supply" isn't that ownership ?
It seems to me your sentence is a synonym for "They want to protect the food supply they own"
Yes, again, I'll agree with you, the words "property" and "ownership" are human constructs, by themselves they refer to complicated concepts.
Pointless observation. Yes it is an accurate observation of reality, all human made words are human made, cool.
Words are human constructs and not even from all humans, your words are only constructs from English speaking humans.
Even the concepts behind words are human constructs.
"A tree" is a human construct too. In nature there are only cells, working from chemical reactions. Nature doesn't have classification "what is a tree, what is a fern". Only chemical reactions, which themselves are only really interactions from physical forces and atoms coming together as molecules sometimes.
When we say "this is a human construct" what do we learn by that ? Everything is a human construct when we communicate, we use simplified models for everything, words that sum up very complex things, or concepts.
So back to the point, Yeah sure, all philosophical reflections are human constructs. Doesn't make them less true, truth is itself a human concept, and we can't escape that, we need a human mind to conceptualize truth.
But this is all metaphysical bullshit, don't get me wrong, I like metaphysical reflections as much as the next guy, but at some point you either accept there is some basic external reality and we are bound to experience it through our sense and use our mind to make models and analyses. Or you just let yourself die because everything is a constructs and we can't think about anything because nothing is true.
We can and do think about what it means to say "this is my property" and what morality is, and what moral rights are entailed by property, and when it is true or not that something is one's property.
YodaCodar@reddit
communist manifesto:
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
merlinm@reddit
Not that I agree with this but,
Theft is seizure without consent. While you nay not have personally given consent, the broader society has in the framework of a political process you can participate in and help manage.
TheLordOfMiddleEarth@reddit
All taxes are theft, but the government has to get it's money somehow. If our government was the same size it was at the time of George Washington, then we wouldn't need taxes, the tariffs would pay the governments budget.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
"All taxes are theft, but the government has to get it's money somehow. "
Leave me out of it.
TheLordOfMiddleEarth@reddit
No I know, that's why I'm a Minarchist. Like I said, we wouldn't need taxes if the government was so big.
disco6789@reddit
When you die what should happen to it?
DollarStoreOrgy@reddit
The day I paid off my home was the day I realized I would never own it free and clear
em_washington@reddit
Property tax prevents land barons from idly sitting on the land. That and inheritance tax. Or else all this land would have been divied up to early friends of the king in vast quantities and their descendants would still own it today and we’d all just be serfs who live on the land and pay a rent determined solely at the authority of the baron or baroness.
Altruistic-Abide-644@reddit
Don’t want to change your mind bcuz you’re right. Property tax is rent. BS all around.
misspelledusernaym@reddit
Even if you buy it and you pay tax sure what ever. Getting taxed every year is the kicker
trappdawg@reddit
Not just land
GuyBannister1@reddit
All tax is immoral