If the county doesn't send me a property tax bill, that's on them and I'm good to go without paying anything this half-year, right?
Right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
-
Thank you, Lego, for letting me simply tell you online which parts were missing from the boy's Christmas present and sending them to me,...
Would you like mine?
ReplyDeletevancouversun.com - Coquitlam homeowner fears unfair tax hike after property value soars
If president thinks it's genius not too pay taxes, sounds like a mandate.
ReplyDeleteJim Douglas Ah, yeah, Vancouver property prices are cray.
ReplyDeleteAl Middleton Oh, yeah! I'll just tell them the President said I was "smart" to not pay taxes.
ReplyDelete>:-[
I'm right behind you.
ReplyDeleteI'll be looking forward to hearing about your foreclosure hearing in the near future. ;)
ReplyDeleteDoubt it. The government's mistakes and oversights are YOUR fault. And since you don't actually own your property they can do anything they like to you.
ReplyDeletePhillip Landmeier It is messed up that the property you "own" is actually considered to be, for lack of a better term, on loan to you by the government.
ReplyDeleteThat seems like kind of a cynical interpretation to me.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle Examples of government(s) simply taking land are all over, but think of this... who "granted" you ownership of your land? Was it your fellow citizens (in which case who classified them as such?) or was it your local government? The deed to your land, is it issued by a world organization or by your government?
ReplyDeleteWhile you have several options to attempt to retain your land should the government decide it wants it for some reason, it's very hard to keep your land if they are determined to take it from you.
So can you feel secure is "owning" something that was granted to you by a government? The only thing securing it is that government and they have the ability to take it back at any time.
John Lewis How is that different from anything else? Nothing you have is completely secure from being taken away by someone else.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are many cases of eminent domain, but there are also lots of cases where an attempt to use eminent domain was struck down by the courts (we had one here in Cincinnati recently). Like every right, the right to own property (or anything else) isn't absolute.
Craig Froehle Agreed.
ReplyDeleteMy county posts them online.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that property "ownership" here is still feudal. If you have to pay taxes on real property and if you don't pay every penny of those taxes the land is seized, you never owned it in the first place.
ReplyDeletePhillip Landmeier Exactly, you are essentially renting it from the government for a legislated rate.
ReplyDeleteSo, by criticizing property taxes, you seem to want wealthy land-owners to be able to hoard their property in perpetuity and not invest back in their communities?
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle Anyone could, not just the wealthy. My point was simply that you don't actually own your real property in the USA. That's a simple fact. And I've lived in countries that work differently and that's where I own property.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle That's an absurd conclusion. Taxes on the wealthy, simply because they are wealthy, are either socialist (attempting to move wealth from one group to another to create equality) or they are a direct cost/benefit (they may, for example, pay for infrastructure improvements that benefit the wealthy more than the average person.)
ReplyDeleteIn either case, I'm not against taxation so long as it has a direct connection to the thing taxed and is known in advance of having said thing. For example a sales tax on cigarettes that goes to pay healthcare makes sense and the users of cigarettes know the cost when they buy them, up front.
Buying land may force you to pay taxes later that don't even exist at the time you buy the land.
+John Lewis said: "I'm not against taxation so long as it has a direct connection to the thing taxed and is known in advance of having said thing."
ReplyDeleteProperty taxes are used for community improvements and schools, which increase the value of the property, making it directly related. Furthermore, anyone buying land in the past 100 years (i.e., everyone alive today who owns land) bought it with the understanding that property taxes exist. Should future property tax laws change to the point where someone no longer considers it just, he/she can certainly sell the land in a private transaction. No one is forced to own land. But, just like income taxes, paying them is part of the deal you make in exchange for living here. You no longer live here, so that deal no longer applies to you (see...everybody has options).
Ultimately, if we don't charge some sort of tax on perpetual property (i.e., land), then those who have it will continue to obtain more (by virtue of being able to hoard and then spend that wealth they'd have otherwise paid) and those who do not will never obtain it. That exacerbates wealth inequality, something I thought you were against.
Craig Froehle Actually I'm against land ownership, but that's a completely different subject.
ReplyDeleteSchools being paid by land ownership makes little sense to me, as the vast majority of those benefitting do not own land, but perhaps this goes with the older version of land ownership and stewardship of the serfs who worked the land.
You could make a case that better schools improve property values, but that's not the kind of direct taxation I'm talking about. People with children in school should pay for schools, or if it's considered a public benefit to all to have educated citizens, then everyone should pay equally, in proportion to their wealth (a progressive tax.)
John Lewis You and I probably agree a lot about how schools are and/or should be funded. I'm just saying that taxing property (which I don't see a reason to prevent ownership in all cases) is related to the benefits such wealth transfer brings to the community and then brings back to the land owner. It's a lot like using taxes to fund the army, in that sense...just way more local.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle I know we agree on way more than we disagree on, but we have polar opposite views on a very small number of topics.
ReplyDeleteIt's why I keep following you. I want to understand your point of view because it informs me and opens new paths of thought. I suspect you tolerate me for similar reasons. As hard as it can be, I appreciate our dialogues.
John Lewis Exactly. Finding someone with whom you can reliably disagree reasonably is a treat in this day and age. ;->
ReplyDelete