Can we eliminate property taxes for residential properties and small local businesses but still tax huge multinational cooperations and the churches?
The federal government owns a large portion of state land especially in the west. If they paid property tax to states the average citizen would not need to pay much in property tax. All taxes are related at some level. Feds give states money and states give feds land water etc. citizens pay for it no matter what. If you pay for what you use then you will choose solutions that are economical and effective. If the government makes the choices they will do the opposite.
2 Likes
Thatās not a good argument. Things back in the 1700s and 1800s required significantly less upkeep with most people skilled enough to do their own work.
Roads werenāt paved, buildings were made out of wood, and towns/cities pitched in to make things work. As cities got bigger, there were bigger and bigger problems. Crime and infrastructure maintenance were chief among them.
Today is definitely not like that.
I am not a fan of how much we are taxed, but property taxes do a lot of good so long as they actually go to things the taxpayer cares about. Accountability at the local level of government to use those taxes on citizen concerns is the better solution.
Iām okay paying taxes if they genuinely benefit the community and myself as a member of that community.
For example, income tax going to other countries to fight their wars is BS.
1 Like
A majority of school district funds come from their local property taxes creating less money for densely populated urban schools and more for higher-income areas. How is the Federal department of Education funded? Can it be eliminated and funds diverted equally to school districts in states not to State Department of Educations. A portion for capital funds to prevent voting on mil levy increases.
1 Like
I couldnāt agree more with this! Property Taxes truly bury the buyer and their family.
1 Like
I disagree with ending property taxes, but I do think there should be a law that property taxes can only be used for services that exclusively benefit property owners:
- Funding the justice systemās investigation and prosecution of property crimes
- Funding the national guard
- Funding mutual impact services like a fire department
These functions of government exist because of a need to protect property from threats, so it makes sense for them to be funded by those who benefit (property owners). Everything else property taxes pay for should be voluntary and payed for by those who use the service.
2 Likes
Perhaps we can find another way to enforce building codes to ensure safe structures, aside from never being able to own our own property for eternity.
I like your ideaā¦we need the true titles to our properties (not warrenty deeds and BS). Once we have thatā¦
ā¦THEN we will fix anything else that breaks because of it. How does that sound? 
1 Like
I disagree with your disagreement justifications, except the last part, which states āEverything else property taxes pay for should be voluntary and payed for by those who use the service.ā
Since I dont care to use your suggested 3 points of service, even though being a property owner myself, I think that you should volunteer to pay them, and I will volunteer not to pay them out of any taxes on my personal private paid-for property. Is that fair? I will be happy to help pay for them through a sales tax or tarriffs, so that you can use them (like the National Guard, fire stations, government investations or even starting a kangaroo farm)ā¦but I would only be doing it out of the goodness of my heart, since I dont care for, or need them. 
There will ALWAYS be two camps in this argumentā¦
#1) Those who state that we cant afford to keep paying on property that we purchased outright, decades ago,
(and)
#2) Those who state that, if we stop property taxes, the schools, roads, bridges and the sky itself, will fall apart.
In an effort to clarify the greatest infringement on whomā¦
-
If group #1 runs out of money to pay these taxes (that seemed to be going up every year while the job numbers are going down every year) then they loose their entire home in a Sheriffs Sale for back taxes.
-
If group #2 runs out of funds for social services because property taxes suddenly ended, then this group has the power of the entire community to devise a new form of income to pay for said social services.
RESULTS:
Looks like those in group #1 are gravely impacted EVERY year; and group #2 might get their dander up for a moment until a new source of revenue replaces property taxes.
GROUP #1 GETS THE VOTE HERE!
Final Fun Note: (Socialism finally fails when you run out of other peopleās money).
1 Like
It sounds to me like you have a very first world, world view. Itās easy to say that you donāt need to fund national defense or law enforcement when you live in the most powerful country in the world and have never had to worry about raiders taking your things, but go live somewhere where the rule of law is nearly non-existent and anarchy reigns and you might change your tune. Itās all very romantic when you donāt actually have to live around it. As far as the fire station goes, the reasonableness of that depends a bit upon population density. If you live out in the country then sure, donāt subscribe to the fire station. Itās your house. If you live right next door to me though, youād better be prepared to be liable for any damage your house does to mine when it burns down right next to it with no effort made to put the flames out. The reason mutual funding of fire services makes sense is because closely clustered property does have potential environmental impact on otherās property.
Seems like everyone I run across that seems to think I need to fund something, and do it a certain way, is by someone who believes that they know how the world works and who needs to pay for it.
Since I know a lot of things, and why each might be necessary to a functioning 1st world society, I already understand the need for funding such things. What I DONāT do, that you are WILLING to do, is to command how YOU will pay for it because I determined that YOU need it. Such a view of life is insulting to the rest of us, and indicative of a tyrannical authoritative nature and is contrary to many American principles.
Try this exercise while you are at it:
1 Like
Let me explain then. What does a world where we believe defense is necessary but each person should choose how they want to fund it look like?
That depends. Possibility 1: Everyone subscribes to a service that only protects them. In this case you revert to tribal warfare, because you have potentially enumerable protective entities all with disjointed interests getting their stories from different parties. My protection service believes what I tell them, yours believes what you tell them and we go to war.
Option number 2 is that you have services that enforce mutually agreed to rules on everyone but prioritize those who subscribe, in which case those who subscribe are funding the protection of those who donāt. These services still have to consider those who donāt subscribe and protect their rights or you have the war scenario but they leach their ability to do that off the people who do subscribeā¦ for as long as thatās permitted.
You pretend that your choices donāt effect me, but if weāre neighbors they do. To live in proximity in peace there needs to be mutual rules about how we interact, and a convincingly unbiased judiciary process. That doesnāt exist if everyone is choosing their own enforcement. And when it comes to stopping an army of organized people. Yeah. You can say that we should all figure it out ourselves, but either that just doesnāt happen, or it does and whoever didnāt contribute to it gets aheadā¦ so that itās less likely to happen next time.
If you enlarge your arguments any further, you may find yourself discussing the entire milkey way galaxy, demanding thousands of pages of text and a decade to write your reply.
The simple point here is not how I might impact you in some hypothetical scenario, or why we need 1st world services to make our lives easier and less impactful on others.
The simple point is thisā¦I will link to it again. Property taxes are unconstitutional theft and should end, so that property owners stop loosing their homes. If social services need to be paid for, this can be figured out AFTER property owners stop getting robbed of their wealth. Here is the justification in that arguementā¦
After we protect the wealth of property owners and stop the ongoing theft, THEN AND ONLY THEN should we have a discussion on why we need to fund social services. Simple as that. I am ending it here. You are welcomed to a final thought. Thanks.
1 Like
Your justification is that āThere will ALWAYS be two campsā and neither of your camps represent my positionā¦
My position is simple. It would be unjust to tax some other aspect of another personās life to supply funds to protect your property, just as itās unjust to tax you property to benefit some other aspect of a personās life.
If we agree that property must be protected from foreign and domestic threats, and that protection is by itās nature non-exclusive (this is what I was making a case for), then it would be unjust to steel tax money from someone who doesnāt own property to protect your property.
Perhaps a point to consider before posting further ā I hope it helps. You might run your ideas through a āConstitutional lensā before espousing them for everyone else to consider. Here is a litmus test for you:
- Does your idea or request violate someoneās Constitutional rights?
- Does it infringe on their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
- Does it interfere with the security of another personās Property, Papers, Person, Possessions or Effects?
I think your entire premise walks all over #3 (The right for someone to be secure in their own home and possessions, regardless of ANYTHING ELSE). Thus, no matter what brilliant discussions and philosophical arguments you might offer, if they fail at #3, then your argument falls flat and should not worthy of further consideration in the context of this forum.
The entire effort on this website, for this forum, appears to be how we might revise our current social situation in an effort to make America Great again. It seems to involve how we might propose making a difference for the greatest good, for the greatest number of Americans. Thus, proposing a way to redistribute unconstitutional property taxes is not fixing anything ā its simply another flavor of the same old status quo that keeps getting property owners kicked out of their homes, which is one of the main arguments for ending it in the first place. You are certainly welcomed to create a new policy called āKeep U.S. Property Taxes In Place And Make Owners Pay For The National Guardā. But instead you are here under someoneās post who calls for ending property taxes. It is OK to object to ending property taxes, like you are doingā¦but do keep in mind that your objection to most people here does not carry as much weight as the hundreds of arguments for ending this codified theft of American wealth, no matter the noble cause of the crime. Thanks.
1 Like
Any tax or tariff could be argued to āinterfere with the security of another personās Property, Papers, or Possessions.ā and yet the government has always raised money from the peopleās possessions in one way or another, even immediately following the Revolution. I think my opinion holds the same weight as one other personās opinion. If Iām outnumbered then thatās fine, but I wonāt be intimidated into not sharing my perspective so that you can create a false perception of unanimity on the issue. Iāll post my dissent, even if it isnāt popular. Iāve never been much of a tribalist anyway.
The reality is, the purpose of this forum is actually to provide creative solutions for the incoming federal administration, so this whole topic is mute, since the federal government doesnāt tax property. I guess weāre all being a bit silly when you consider that.
Exactly or if you donāt pay school taxes, they still can take your land, even though your land has been paid off for years.
2 Likes
BECAUSE YOUR LATEST POST IS ALL OVER THE PLACE, I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS THOROUGHLY IN A MANNER THAT INCLUDES BOTH VOICESā¦I WILL EMBED MY ARGUEMENTS BEHIND YOUR WORD WITH BRACKETS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN WITNESS THE EXCHANGE CORRECTLYā¦
Any tax or tariff could be argued to āinterfere with the security of another personās Property, Papers, or Possessions.ā and yet the government has always raised money from the peopleās possessions in one way or another, even immediately following the Revolution. [Your argument is this: since we have always had taxes, we should always have taxes, and that should extend to property taxes. My answer is this: It doesnt matter how long a crime has been committed, and in this case, we look to the Constitution for determining it to be a crime, the crime should not be allowed to continue.] I think my opinion holds the same weight as one other personās opinion. If Iām outnumbered then thatās fine, but I wonāt be intimidated into not sharing my perspective so that you can create a false perception of unanimity on the issue [Given that you decided to counter the opinions of the majority of this post who defend this argument of not paying property taxes (since that is precisely the title of the post), then it is not you who is the victim when you come into the post, knowing its topic, and countering this topic with your own objections when they were not asked of you. As such, you are being thoroughly āoffensiveā in nature, not ādefensiveā, as you might suggest.]. Iāll post my dissent, even if it isnāt popular. Iāve never been much of a tribalist anyway. ***[***When you insist that others pay taxes to cover national expenses that you deem important, you are behaving as a socialist ā another term for a socialist is a āTribal-istā since those who live in this mindset believe that others in the tribe should provide comfort and security to the tribe and to themselves.]
The reality is, the purpose of this forum is actually to provide creative solutions for the incoming federal administration [Yes, an administration that is unlike any other in Historyā¦one that wishes to Make America Great Again ā hence the unique forum you now engage in, unlike any other administration before now], so this whole topic is mute, since the federal government doesnāt tax property. ***[***And if you were considering this forum from a Constitutional perspective, then you would know that the argument is indeed at the federal level, since it has the been assigned the supreme duty to enforce the Constitution across the entire United States, and since the states cannot create law that is already defined by the federal government through the Constitution, then you should know that the rights of States to violate the Constitution via assigning property taxes to the American People, and denying them the security and peace of mind of living in their own homes is a Constitutional violation, making state taxes mandates NULL AND VOID.] I guess weāre all being a bit silly when you consider that. [No dear, you are being silly for entering a forum that argues for ending unconstitutional taxation of private property for the express purpose of paying for things that you hold dear, when you even confessed that you are not a property ownerā¦that you have no dog in this fightā¦that you have no skin in the gameā¦and that you are simply trying to keep the property taxation game going so that you dont have to get hit with taxes to fund the schools, fire stations, etc. which you currently enjoy having, so that you can sleep better at night. If something is unconstitutional, it must end, no matter your preference in the matter. End of discussion.]
Note: Here is the post from a few days before, regarding the legality of state property taxes:
3 Likes
I agree! Imagine paying your house off to have someone pay your taxes for you when you cannot as an elderly person and lose your home 
1 Like
Part of NESARA.