Property Taxes - DPChallenge Forums

06/29/2005 11:11:31 PM · #1

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, no. You misread me. I consider private property paramount as all conservatives do. You see, I view taxation on any property as confiscation by the taxing force. You buy a house, you pay for it and then you are levied a tax. Even though you own the house it is really the property of the government because failure to meet the taxes leads to confiscation. So what you own is subject to a perpetual tax.

There are taxes needed to perform certain functions but we all know that taxation always gets out of hand because we are feeding a hungry mouth whose appetite knows no end. Instead I prefer taxes on anything but property.

Yes, I believe and endorse a capitalist engine, but the infringement of government creates a double edge sword that eventually swipes at the common citizen.

The conservative philosophy is better expressed in the Bill of Rights which sets out to contain government. The moment that good intentions to help others prevail we wind up with the exact opposite. This is because the amounts of moneys needed must be taxed. The tax base is always in need of updating because money has a funny way of disappearing when given to any government and then the end purpose suffers. You can see this for yourself by observing all the programs that we pump money into. The more we pump the more that is needed.

Yes, we all care about human suffering but we kid ourselves that this is Eldorado. We elect a governing body and then corruption follows. So much money and such little character.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's play a thought game: suppose you, Daniel, own 100% of the property in the township of Sweet Success. Based on current models, you'd pay 100% of the taxes that run the town of Sweet Success. At the same time, presumably, you are essentially receiving a percentage of all revenues generated by businesses in the town, as they all are paying rent to you. There are those who argue that as the largest landowner (i.e. richest individual) in Sweet Success you should pay the lion's share of the running of the town. But the town needs police, it needs schools, it needs water, it needs all that good stuff, and the consumers of these services are everyone in the township, not just you, the sole landowner.

Therefore, property taxes are an inherently unfair form of taxation, forcing property owners to pay a disproportionate share of the operating expenses of the entity doing the taxing.

Is this a reasonable summary of the main argument against property tax? I'd be interested in exploring this issue, Daniel; I've never really thought about it deeply before. Perhaps in another thread? Feel free to start one, I'll participate.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-06-29 23:14:17.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/29/2005 11:41:43 PM · #2

Following the idea as you presented it is exactly what bad government is. Here Daniel own everything and he leases to homes, business etc. It is then the full responsibility of daniel to build the roads and all infracstucture including homes and schools. The cost is charged evenly to all by increasing the lease amount. Of, course, the pie can get broken down by a developer leasing space and building but Daniel is still responsible for the the roads that get there and the general utilities.

Okay, daniel decides to be fair and instead of leasing you can buy with the proviso that there will be a perpetual tax on your property and if it is not paid Daniel will confiscate.

If Daniel really wants to be fair he will sell the property and put up a consumption tax to handle the general expense of running the city. In this way, you never really lose your property because there is no tax lean. The property is yours.

You can then extend the socialist principle and charge a surcharge on the the consumption tax to help those individuals that end up without resources in their old age. Since this is always a small percentage, it would not prove a burden to the populance because most individuals do prepare for their final days.

I said, apply a socialist principle but there is a big difference, the real Socialist principle is convoluted because then you get into social engineering. This means that the town must look at your individula needs. So, it can say to you, look, you have no children so it is best if we move into these units. You do not drive, so you do not need a parking space. Well, it will seek to sort so as to make the most sense.

To me the above is a nightmare because they will want to own all the land and we are back to a state that was worse then when we began with Daniel. Daniel wanted to give the best because he leased or sought a profit. The socialist state is not in it for the money, so without a profit goal there is no need for choices because the smaller unit (the citizens) bow to the larger need of the state.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/29/2005 11:44:24 PM · #3

An escapee posting? Yes. When I finally read to the bottom where bear-music is making his point, I began to understand.

I wish I has something really intelligent to add to this already well-developed topic...but all I have is this.

You own the house. That's what the mortgage is on.

The city owns the property and allows you to use it as long as you maintain it and pay taxes to the city....sort of an "access fee" for the roads, sidewalks, garbage removal, police protection, etc.

If you don't pay your taxes to the city, they can seize property of value to make up for it...easiest thing to seize is the house you own since it's on "city property". (If you live in the country just substitute township, or state for "city")

So, to the best of my understanding, there really are no "property owners" in the U.S. All property that can be "owned" is relatively portable and limited. The geographic space my house and yard occupy does not extend infinitely upward or downward....air traffic control can route a plane over "my space" anytime it wants, for example.

(Babbling now, back to sleep for me.)

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

06/29/2005 11:49:41 PM · #4

Those property taxes also go to support the education of the young people who live within the city/town/township/county/wherever. Funds are dwindling on the federal and state levels, so districts are having to make up the differences for those shortfalls by asking us to dig deeper into our pockets. As much as I hate property tax, I also know that if it were not for the taxes we pay, our kids wouldn't stand a chance in the future.

Property taxes also support hospitals and other medical programs as well. I would hate to go to the ER after having a heart attack and having them say "Sorry, we're closed, nobody wanted to pay taxes." An extreme example to be sure, but you get the point.

My two cents. ;)

06/30/2005 12:00:14 AM · #5

Yes, but the same can be accomplished with a general consumption tax and this would work if we were a single state.

As kadi observes, we own nothing because of the perpetual tax.

This means you can pay off your house and retire on a fixed income. The taxing base is certain to grow until you are forced to lose your property.

Instead, what the states do is to charge you the property tax and then they put up a consumption tax which is really a sales tax and they never have enough because all government has the perverse propensity to grow and consume beyonds its means. They then add tolls on the roads. Each year they have a shortfall and they sell bonds. The more the state grows the more the appetite for additional revenues.

06/30/2005 12:01:17 AM · #6

I feel like there are a lot of threads being mixed up here, so I'll start with property taxes, because in this regard I agree with you. I agree with you because the result of the perpetual property tax is that many elderly are being forced to sell or losing their homes to the tax collector, far more than lose their homes to eminent domain claims, and the problem has reached epidemic proportions in New York State and New Jersey. It's probably happening in lots of other states as well, but I'm aware of the problem in New Jersey and NY in particular.

As for services purchased with my tax dollars, there are NO services in my town of 1,500 -- no municipal water (we all have wells), no garbage collection (each individual homeowner must contract with the private trash collection company), no sewers, and no road repair (which service is performed by the county). We do have a fire dept., but we pay a separate tax for that service (and it would be nice if they could manage to save one house from burning to the ground, which in the six years I've been living here they haven't been able to accomplish). So I have wondered why in the world we're paying such heavy local taxes here. The school is another matter which I won't get into right now.

06/30/2005 12:16:56 AM · #7

I guess I will add my thoughts on school taxes, since laurie raised the issue. Although I recognize the need to educate the kids in my community, and for me to pay my fair share in that endeavor, the school here is a failing school, on the official list of NYS failing schools. It has been so designated for the six years I've been living here. A tiny fraction of the kids who graduate go on to junior colleges, most go into the military, many languish with no skills and bleak prospects for the future. Yet every year the school taxes rise 5 to 10 percent. A lot of that rise is attributed to the retirement benefits and health care costs of the teachers. These teachers are well paid, by the way. The gym teacher, who works a half day, makes over $50,000 a year. I think that's a bit of an excessive salary for a gym teacher, especially in a county with one of the lowest per capita income rates in the entire country. It doesn't seem to matter how much money is thrown at that school, nothing ever changes. I'd feel a lot better about paying my school tax if that institution turned out a few kids every year who went on to Ivy League universities, or even decent four-year state colleges. But as it stands now, I feel my tax dollars are being wasted.

Message edited by author 2005-06-30 00:21:03.

06/30/2005 12:30:37 AM · #8

I am in full sympathy with your post (Judith) However, this goes back to my central argument that all governments increase in size and return less and less and then they want more and more. Look at the school system. It becomes more bloated and more inefficient. Like you said, this is another topic.

Now, let us assume that Judith's town is invaded by illegal immigrants. New taxes will be born because depletion will soon follow. This is what is taking place in many places in America and both Democrats and Replublicans look the other way, but the big burden is on the individula states.

Now, forget about illegals for a moment. Let us say we have a Federal government that provides just the basic protection to protect our freedom. Each State can then keep it own books and tax accordingly. Here you have a Federal Tax and a State tax and in many cases a City Tax.

Now, the best thing to do is to contain all of these governments as small as possible. While they help they are also a drag and a real pain if they grow too big.

So let us say that a section of the populance decides to get involved in social services, healthcare, birth control etc, etc...All of these social programs will inundate the entire structure. There is no such thing as a well run government. Where there is so much money there is always corruption. As it grows bigger then its work force increases and they want attractive salaries and then pensions. It is only a matter of time before it falls under its own weight.

06/30/2005 12:46:58 AM · #9

Daniel, there is also a cost in NOT providing social services, healthcare services, etc., a financial cost and a cost in terms of quality of life. As an example, let's say we do away with the Centers for Disease Control, and there is an outbreak of some horrific, heretofore unknown virus, and the country has no infrastructure that can effectively respond. I'm just suggesting a pretty obvious example so that the cost of NOT having such services becomes apparent.

Message edited by author 2005-06-30 00:48:35.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/30/2005 01:00:23 AM · #10

You are certainly right. That is the double edge sword I spoke off earlier. The same thing applies to an arm forces and consider the other needs. The more needs we address the more money that is needed. Note that there is always a need for more.

Consider a simple one: Social Security. Imagine if this money were teated like a personal account from the start. The government collects it and under its supervision it gives it to a third party to invest in bonds and other safe investments.

No way, from the start, they paid off the immediate obligations and the balance was then thrown into the general account. All spent before the year ended.

Now, it is in trouble and headed for depletion. The government itself knew the instability here and the politicians quickly converted to personal accounts. Their money grows and grows. Yet, look at how they want to keep the populance in the dark.

The end game is bankrupty of the entire government. So it borrows and borrows because it hopes to increase its tax base...but what happens when the tax base stops its growth? Then you have decline and finally third world status. This is the end game but things look promising for the immediate future so nothing is done.

Message edited by author 2005-06-30 01:01:05.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/30/2005 01:13:29 AM · #11

The thrust of this thread seems to have become "How taxes are used, and do we benefit from being taxed?" Speaking for myself, as an instigator of this thread, I am less interested (at this instant in time anyway) in that than I am in the implied question that began the thread: "Why is property tax a bad idea for funding the infrastructure, and what alternatives are there that would be fairer?"

That our government/s is/are wasteful is beyond question IMO. I'm specifically interested, however, in other models for collecting the funds we need to maintain our social and physical infrastructures. In particular, the idea that ALL taxes could be replaced with a single consumption tax: no income tax, no property tax, just a straight tax on what is used/consumed by each individual, paid as part of the cost of that consumption. But I'm interested in any such alternative approaches to the issue of taxation.

Robt.

06/30/2005 01:22:36 AM · #12

Welcome Rob: Well, I am one that would endorse consumption taxes. However, we have gotten so far away that I see an immediate problem, yet this is the tax that I would favor so that property becomes the true "property" of the owner. I know of no government that gives back what it has already taken. That is, it prefers to own the property and lease its' subjects.

By the time you wondered in several tangents were born. But I am ready to stay on topic.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/30/2005 01:55:00 AM · #13

I just found this article in a search:

Progressive Consumption Tax

You might also want to check out this guy's homepage for a fascinating array of subjects on which he writes.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/30/2005 02:11:32 AM · #14

As I see it, the inherent unfairness of a property tax is that by its very nature it continues to rise while those who own property eventually, as they age, reach a point where their income drops to a relatively fixed level. This isn't true of everyone, of course, but it's true of a lot of "ordinary" working people. Now, property taxes are tied into assessed valuation; as the value of property rises, the amount paid in taxes also rises. And property values, especially in desirable areas, have risen to ridiculous levels lately. Net result? Lifelong residents/property owners cannot afford to stay in their homes in their "golden years". This is a serious problem where Ilive on Cape Cod.

Now, these same people, as they age, are consuming less and less; they don't use the schools, for instance, they drive less, they don't buy as much "stuff" as they used to as they adjust to their fixed incomes. They don't need new furniture, they eat less, and so forth and so on. Meanwhile, the ONE thing they need to feel secure, property ownership, becomes more and more of a burden to them.

This seems fundamentally wrong to me, and I wish there was a way around it. I remember California, years and years ago, addressed this with a proposition, passed overwhelmingly, that fixed you assessed valuation at whatever it was when you bought the property, but I'm pretty sure that in one of their regular crises they repealed this proposition. In any case, it was a bandaid.

As long as you have a mortgage, you won nothing: the bank owns your property. Even after you pay the bank off, the government has a perpetual mortgage on your property called "taxes", and if you fail to pay the taxes they take the property from you. But you have little control, except as one voter, over the amount of taxes you have to pay. In our community, they just put an "override" up to vote and it failed to pass; the override would have dinged each property owner an additional, one-time fee (averaging, I believe, 250 dollars) to meet town budget shortfalls for the fiscal year. The voters essentially called the town on the carpet and said "live within your means"; the town responded by laying off a significant number of policemen and firefighters and teachers, among others.

The people were freaked by tis (what did they expect?) and the whole debate flared up anew, with the result that we are going to the polls again to try to vote the override in, and this (of course) will cost us more money for a second round of balloting. It's kind of crazy. There's like 12 or 15 different fire distrticts on Cape Cod, each funded by its own town, and all with cooperation agreements so they can cross boundaries and whoever's closest to the fire can get to it promptly. Our neighboring town, Dennis, has no budget shortfall, and they've told us they will no longer "cooperate" by sending their firefighters into Harwich, since we have elected to cut back on our services and why should Dennis have to pay for this? But, historically, it's been impossible to set up a unified emergency district cape-wide, with each town contributing to its operation.

Robt.