Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 109
  1. #41  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

    It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

    There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.

    So the people who benefit most from society, property owners, are to be completely relieved from its obligations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    So the people who benefit most from society, property owners, are to be completely relieved from its obligations?
    Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    There are quite a lot of people who make $10 per hour who have mortgages and those who rent are paying the property tax through the rent.
    OK. I live in a 15 year old 1900 s/ft ranch. I pay 900 dollars a year in taxes because I'm over 65. The question then becomes, "Where did a person making 10/hour get the money to buy my house?"

    He didn't. He can't. At 10/hour people have to rent and their rent should be not more than 400/month. They ain't paying no 1,000/year in property tax.

    And you oughta just give up on this idea of creating straw victims that you can then point to as a perfect example of whatever point you are trying to make. Do some work, and find some figures that support your position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

    It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

    There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.
    I agree with you, I personally would like to see the property tax go the way of the dodo.

    I would like get away from both property and income taxes and go to only a Consumption tax. That coupled with the proposed amendment to cap spending and blanace the budget would go a long way to straightening out the government and keeping it from spending like a drunken sailor. Consumption is easy to assess and would be able to figure out how much there is to spend every year.

    Sadly it'll take some balls and people in positions that are most likely Lame ducks with a lot of political capital to push it through, or first term that would be willing to sacrifice a second term to get it done
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    That would definitely shift the burden down.

    What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.
    OK. Where is that model used? And what would the burden be on someone who owns, say a 200,000 home? And don't you think the property taxes would be passed through to renters, or would commercial property be exempt, and if it were, wouldn't that drive up demand (i.e. price) of commercial (rental) property?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    That would definitely shift the burden down.

    What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.
    How much of a property tax? Would you permit deductions for mortgages? Would a property that had been in a family for multiple generations be exempt? Would the feds be allowed to confiscate property if it were not paid up? What is to prevent the feds from abusing the law to snatch up choice real estate (as they did with the Robert E. Lee estate, which became Arlington National Cemetery)? Once again, how much of our property would we get to keep?

    And, it's a bad idea, not just for the reasons that Nova cites. A tax on property will discourage ownership of property. The incentive to rent, and let someone else suck up the tax, will be immense, and even if the tax is passed on to renters, there is no guarantee that rent control won't impose other penalties on landlords. The housing markets in cities like NYC and Los Angeles demonstrate this abundantly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

    It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

    There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.
    I agree with everything up to the last paragraph, and only disagree with one part of that. If we tax commerce, we discourage it. Similarly, if we tax property, we endanger it. John Marshall stated unequivocably that the power to tax is the power to destroy, so we must ask ourselves what areas we want government to destroy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    So the people who benefit most from society, property owners, are to be completely relieved from its obligations?
    Until you define the obligations, I refuse to acknowledge them as obligations. They're simply impositions by people who refuse to explain how much I ought to pay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.
    Years ago, I wanted to build a house in Los Angeles (I was working there at the time, soon-to-be-married, and could buy a lot with a tear-down house on it for less then a vacant lot and build for less than the price of a home that was already there, such are the vagueries of CA real estate), and I was told that the permits would take a year, but if I was willing to allocate a portion of that bulding to low-income housing, they would expedite the process and I'd have my permits in a few weeks. Since I planned to live there, I didn't want Section 8 roommates, and told them where they could stick their permits. Needless to say, I dodged a bullet by not owning property in Los Angeles, but I don't know any landlord who would prefer to rent to Section 8 tenants when he can rent to people who won't destroy the property or the neighborhood.
    Last edited by Odysseus; 02-21-2012 at 12:08 PM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    You guys aren't getting this. Let's go back to first principles.

    What is the purpose of taxes? Any taxes, income or otherwise? Is it to redistribute wealth? Is it to provide the government with the means of manipulating behavior so that it can achieve desired outcomes? Or is it to fund the functions of government? And if it is only to fund the functions of government, then what are the legitimate functions of that government? Does the government have the right to exceed its Constitutional limits and then stick us with the bill? Does the government have the authority to decide that some people make too much, some make too little, and to try to "spread the wealth around"? Or does it have an obligation to treat all people equally before the law, regardless of their income?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post

    There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.
    You do realize you've just made an argument for The Fair Tax don't you?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.
    Not too sure what a "ten cent millionaire" is.:tongue:

    Welfare money goes to welfare recipients. What they do with it is up to them, but it would be hard to envision them spending it somewhere where no one owns a store, or no one owns the real estate, and doctors work for nothing.:smile:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    You do realize you've just made an argument for The Fair Tax don't you?
    The starting point for any discussion on taxes should be the sum total of government services that we are willing to pay for. Once we have established that a program is Constitutionally mandated, then we can determine how much we want to spend on it, and then, and only then, determine how we will raise the revenues. Before a program should be enacted or continued, it should be evaluated to determine if it is mandated by the Constitution (not implied, hinted at or can be justified by a tortured reading of the language of the Constitution, but actually mandated). If not, it needs to be phased out. Then, and only then, can we look at raising revenues to fund the remainder of the government. We have several options, but they need to be understood before we can weigh their relative merits:
    • Taxes: This includes taxes on income, transactions (purchases of specific commodities), property, savings or investments. However, the more we tax any one area, the more that we discourage growth in that area.
    • Sales: The government owns huge swathes of land and other property. Sales of government-owned land with proven oil or gas reserves could be a significant source of revenues, but once a property is sold, it cannot be sold again, so revenues from sales of government property are not renewable. They can be used for stopgap funding, in a pinch, but you don't want to rely on them. OTOH, the more land that the feds sell, the less of it they have to administer, which reduces other costs.
    • Leases: Leasing government land can generate revenues, but since the government continues to dictate the use of the land, despite the leasing, these leases are not as attractive as they could be. The current moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is one example. Trying to enforce a contract with the government can also be frustrating and expensive.
    • Duties and Tariffs: These are basically taxes paid at entry through customs. They impose taxes on imports, but discourage exports, as other countries tend to retaliate in kind.
    • User fees: Fees charged for the use of federal property. Think toll roads (although most of these are either private or municipal, but there's a whole federal highway system out there). The upside is that the fees can be used exclusively to maintain the property that is charging the fee, so that it is a pay-as-you-go system that is about as equitable as it gets, while the downside is that such fees tend to suppress use of the property.
    • Debt: Probably the easiest way for government to gain revenues, as it avoids the pain of raising taxes, but permits politicians to do whatever they want. Current levels of debt make further borrowing highly unadvisabe, especially since even a slight uptick in interest rates could prove ruinous to the US economy. In addition, imposing debt on future generations, without their consent, is clearly immoral. Those who argue that a fetus is not a person have no business borrowing money in his name. For this reason, borrowing should be limited to existential crises, such as war or disasters on a national scale.
    • Inflation: Governments have the capacity to print money, and the money that they print and then spent amounts to a transfer of wealth from those who are holding currency, as the value of the currency that they hold is reduced proportionally to the amount of new money circulated. It's another clever way to bilk the public, but inflation tends to add up, and after a few years of inflationary monetary policies, the politicians start to suffer at the polls. Also, inflation drives up interest rates, which makes borrowing more expensive.
    Now that we've established how government can fund programs, I think we can all agree that borrowing and inflation are not viable longterm solutions, and in fact, they are patently unethical, as borrowing imposes debt on future generations who had no say in the borrowing, while inflation is simply clever theft. Leasing simply perpetuates government control of otherwise potentially productive land, and encourages takings of land in order to increase its holdings. Also, leasing is dependent on the good will and integrity of politicians. Duties and tariffs encourage retaliation that can harm trade and economic activity (See the Hawley-Smoot tariff for a prime example). That leaves us with user fees and taxes. User fees are generally good for paying for specific projects, but if the fees exceed the value of the gains made from using the project, they will discourage economic activity that is dependent upon those projects. For example, if a toll on a highway discourages trucking, then economic activity is reduced. So, while user fees have their uses, they must be used sparingly. That leaves us with taxes.

    If we accept the premise that all Americans are equal before the law, and in the eyes of government, then those programs which can be said to be for the benefit of the public are, obviously, of equal benefit to all, at least legally, and the obligation to fund them is therefore equal. Thus, the starting point for any tax plan should be to establish the federal budget, determine the gross cost of funding it for the year, and then dividing up the cost among the consumers equally. Now, Obama's budget was something on the order of $3.7 trillion for 2012. Divided among 300 million or so Americans, that gives us approximately $12,333 per person in tax liabilities for FY 2012. His budget for 2013 is $3.8 trillion, or $12,666 for every man, woman and child in America. That is everyone's fair share of the federal budget, as currently proposed. Now, I don't think that anyone here wants to pay $12,666 for their share of the federal government, so clearly, we need to take a look at making some spending cuts. I'm open to suggestions.
    Last edited by Odysseus; 02-21-2012 at 01:45 PM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •