So I heard the other day on Free Talk Live Radio how property owners in the U.S. basically don't own their property at all. They think they own it but when you ask them what would happen if you don't pay property tax on the property what would happen? Obviously many would say the State would take it away from the so-called owner. If this is true, then the owner is really the State and the owner who believes he owns the property is nothing more than a renter of the property from the State. I think this is one of the most enlightening aspects of property rights that if explained to many property owners could easily spark some type of desire for the abolishment of the property tax.
Any thoughts?
"Government is just a group of men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun." — Marc Stevens, No State Project
That's why the Founding Fathers were opposed to direct taxes, because they imply that the government owns everything you have.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
I've been saying for years that property tax is nothing more than propety owners paying rent to the government. A lot of other people have come to the same conclusion.
Black Market: So I heard the other day on Free Talk Live Radio how property owners in the U.S. basically don't own their property at all. They think they own it but when you ask them what would happen if you don't pay property tax on the property what would happen? Obviously many would say the State would take it away from the so-called owner. If this is true, then the owner is really the State and the owner who believes he owns the property is nothing more than a renter of the property from the State. I think this is one of the most enlightening aspects of property rights that if explained to many property owners could easily spark some type of desire for the abolishment of the property tax. Any thoughts?
Well, be careful with the word "owner" as that implies legitimacy. The state is not the real owner, but it acts like it is and it has the power to back that up.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Would it be correct to call this feudalism?
...but what do I know.
Broken Window: Would it be correct to call this feudalism?
Digressing off property taxes slightly, the serfs in Feudal England had to pay a fifth of their produce to the Lord of the Manor.
Adding up all our taxes, plus the inflation tax, we must pay over 50% of our income in tax.
Calling it feudalism may therefore be too kind!
Technically speaking, feudalism is a socio-economic system where every member of society has a rigid niche set up for them early in life (i.e. king, knight, vassal, serf, etc.). I'd say we live in, economically at least, a fascist society. Government mandated monopolies, cartels, union control, tariffs, strict regulation, etc. are all hallmarks of a fascist economy.
krazy kaju: That's why the Founding Fathers were opposed to direct taxes
That's why the Founding Fathers were opposed to direct taxes
Um, sorry, but WHAT?
Property taxes are the most economic form of taxation, since the purpose of the state is, at least theoretically, to defend property. The more property you have, the more expenses the state supports to defend it. They also fall proportionately on the poor and the rich, while income and consumption taxes target the poor disproportionately.
It is much better strategically to condemn income and consumption taxes, since under a free market for security you would still have to pay to protect your property and thus property taxes would never be completely done away with.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger:They also fall proportionately on the poor and the rich, while income and consumption taxes target the poor disproportionately.
By "dispropotionately" you don't mean "more than otherwise" do you? Because tax expenses are passed onto the consumer.
Stranger:It is much better strategically to condemn income and consumption taxes, since under a free market for security you would still have to pay to protect your property and thus property taxes would never be completely done away with.
Paying for a protection agency is not a tax, that's paying for a service, which falls under consumption. And it's much better to condem taxes in general.
I'll do ya one better:
Renters are also paying property taxes, because landlords have to figure in the cost of their property taxes in order to calculate a profitable amount to charge in rent.
So, what happens when property taxes go up but the property is rent-controlled a la NYC? =)
"Every civilization depends on the quality of individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness-they cannot work and their civilization collapses." -Frank Herbert, from Children of Dune
scineram:Um, sorry, but WHAT?
You've never read the Constitution, have you? There's a reason why we needed an entire amendment for the income tax. I'll give you a hint: Article I Section 9.
banned:By "dispropotionately" you don't mean "more than otherwise" do you? Because tax expenses are passed onto the consumer.
The taxes are paid by whoever writes the cheque to the government. Those are then factored into the costs of production. Since the rich have a lot of accumulated wealth, they are not affected by higher production costs as much as those who must produce their wealth.
krazy kaju: scineram:Um, sorry, but WHAT? You've never read the Constitution, have you? There's a reason why we needed an entire amendment for the income tax. I'll give you a hint: Article I Section 9.
LOL, you never needed. There is no ban on income tax. The amendment added no new powers of taxation, just removed some requirements.
scineram: krazy kaju: scineram:Um, sorry, but WHAT? You've never read the Constitution, have you? There's a reason why we needed an entire amendment for the income tax. I'll give you a hint: Article I Section 9. LOL, you never needed. There is no ban on income tax. The amendment added no new powers of taxation, just removed some requirements.
I started reading the constitution when I heard about Ron Paul, but then I found out that the US CONSTITUTION doesn't really prohibit the Government from collecting income tax.
Even if you remove the 16th ammendment which was added in 1913, the government can still collect taxes.
Article 1,Section 9 does not really prohibit the government from collecting direct taxes.
but I still think Ron Paul is awesome
Peter Griffin: I started reading the constitution when I heard about Ron Paul, but then I found out that the US CONSTITUTION doesn't really prohibit the Government from collecting income tax. Even if you remove the 16th ammendment which was added in 1913, the government can still collect taxes. Article 1,Section 9 does not really prohibit the government from collecting direct taxes. but I still think Ron Paul is awesome
Who the hell cares what the constitution says?! Taxation is theft, every form of it.
Ron Paul is just a man. Even if he had won the presidency, the rest of the federal gov't would have neutralized him.
Love liberty, not documents or politicians.
stillbjorn: So, what happens when property taxes go up but the property is rent-controlled a la NYC? =)
That's the cue to sell and move to the sticks
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Well, be careful with the word "owner" as that implies legitimacy. The state is not the real owner, but it acts like it is and it has the power to back that up.
True that. Well said.
Peter Griffin: scineram: krazy kaju: scineram:Um, sorry, but WHAT? You've never read the Constitution, have you? There's a reason why we needed an entire amendment for the income tax. I'll give you a hint: Article I Section 9. LOL, you never needed. There is no ban on income tax. The amendment added no new powers of taxation, just removed some requirements. I started reading the constitution when I heard about Ron Paul, but then I found out that the US CONSTITUTION doesn't really prohibit the Government from collecting income tax. Even if you remove the 16th ammendment which was added in 1913, the government can still collect taxes. Article 1,Section 9 does not really prohibit the government from collecting direct taxes. but I still think Ron Paul is awesome
The thing is, the Constition doesn't have to prohibit things. It is a document of enumerated powers, meaning that the only powers that the federal government has are those that are explicitly granted to it in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say the fedgov can do something, then it can't (without an amendment, or some creative butchering of the document (which we've had plenty of)).
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The thing is, the Constition doesn't have to prohibit things. It is a document of enumerated powers, meaning that the only powers that the federal government has are those that are explicitly granted to it in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say the fedgov can do something, then it can't (without an amendment, or some creative butchering of the document (which we've had plenty of)).
What kind of penalties does the constitution provide for those who violate this principle?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap