Well said
I certainly hope so, Chris! Thanks! 
Absolutely Rb! There have been family farms in the family for generations, that had to be wittled down and sold off piece by piece to cover yearly extortion demands (property taxes) by state governments who cant manage their spending, but damn sure know how to falsely raise property values (even in up or down markets) to match their yearly shortcomes. Completely criminal enterprise that flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution. Just because a state government participates in criminal extortion, throws a microscopic cut of it toward school donations, and calls it something innocent, like âa taxâ doesnât mean its OK and be allowed to continue happening. These states are WRONG and are STEALING grandmaâs meager wealth, which does NOT belong to them. Many know darn good and well, that if these property taxes ended, the states would have another source of funds identified with a couple of weeks to offset the lost grandma-extortion revenue. Many socialists in here play âChicken Littleâ and run around claiming that the sky will fall if property tax extortion ends. They should be ignored IMO, since this is the normal behavior of a socialist mindset in the first place. Our elderly need our help to keep their homes â they need us to push back on State Theft of their Constitutionaly-protected private properties. It is our duty as Americans to help the innocent and most vulnerable in our society. If the states have a spending problemâŚwe go to the source of the problemâŚwe grab a buget-cutting axe and start wacking away at state government bloat and fat. Its common sense that you dont bring over 10 boxes of pizza to a 450 pound obese whale every time it hollars about being hungry â you keep it hungry and force it on a crash diet. Same here, with bloated governments. Grandma isnât your next pizza. Leave grandma alone in her quest for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of (what is left of her) Happiness. We are talking about grandmaâs HOME and modest possessions, for heavenâs sake! Back off! Amen.
3 Likes
- âYour argument is this: since we have always had taxes, we should always have taxesâ
Nope. My argument is that the writers of the document you claim to make your arguments infallible didnât appear to interpret it the way you do.
- âthen it is is not you who is the victimâ
No one is a âvictimâ in this conversation. Itâs a conversation. I didnât attack you. I disagreed with you. Countering a majority position isnât any more aggressive or âoffensiveâ than countering a minority position. Weâre all just sharing our own thoughts on the issue.
- " When you insist that others pay taxes to cover national expenses that you deem important, you are behaving as a socialist â another term for a socialist is a âTribal-istâ since those who live in this mindset believe that others in the tribe should provide comfort and security to the tribe and to themselves."
I hate so much when people redefine language for political reasons. The left does it all the time when they canât make a good argument. They just redefine the words being used in the argument to paint their opposition as some mutually disliked term. No. Socialism is not the philosophy that taxes can be raised to cover non-competitive societal costs. Socialism is a belief in the shared ownership of the means of production. Accusing me of being Socialist when definitionally I am not doesnât make your argument stronger. You appear to be an anarchist (from you constitutional argument)⌠who is sometimes ok with with non-property taxes (from your earlier concessions). Iâm a libertarian Statist. Being a Statist doesnât make me a Socialist. You may dislike both. That doesnât make them the same thing. Also, socialists are not definitionally tribalists, though they may often turn out to be. Tribalist, is a pretty well established term in US Politics at this point, and it means someone who adheres to a political philosophy in its entirety (or agrees with a specific political figure) and adopts all the thoughts of their âtribeâ instead of evaluating each claim individually and drawing their own conclusions. Painting me with these epithets isnât going to make me recant because I know what these words mean in common use. It doesnât matter to me what they mean to you.
To address your response to my last paragraph Iâll just say that if these forums were set up by the Supreme court to try to understand the constitution (as frighteningly foolish as that would be) you might have a point. The federal administration on the other hand, does not make decisions about state government actions and whether theyâre appropriate. Thatâs a very important separation of powers defined by the constitution. So yeah. I stand by my earlier statement. This thread is just bloviating about what people want. Itâs not directed at anyone with the power to make the change it seeks.
- âwhen you even confessed that you are not a property owner⌠that you have no dog in this fight⌠that you have no skin in the gameâŚâ
Where prey tell, did I âconfessâ that? I can assure you I did not. Why do people on the internet always feel the need to put words in otherâs mouths to make their points?
- âthat you are simply trying to keep the property taxation game going so that you donât have to get hit with taxes to fund the schoolsâŚâ
Now youâre just trolling. I explicitly excluded schools from things property taxes should be used to fund. Schools do not defend your property in any way.
- âEnd of discussionâ
Well I guess if you say so then I just canât respond. lol
Milked enoughâŚmove along to another contribution to society, if you can muster it.
Let me suggest you start here, with someone elseâ post that explicitly spells out how property taxes are Constitutional issue, and should be resolved at the federal level. You might learn something about why your desire to keep property taxes in place, is a complete affront on everything that Americans stand forâŚ
And finally, please start addressing this other person on why he is also wrong about thinking property taxes should be stopped â Im done with bone-headed socialist arguements.
BRAVO!!! Absolutely Professional Post Here! Worthy of linking back to every chance ya get! Thanks! 
1 Like
Iâve been discussing this broader subject with Susan Sue K and I think she wants your help dissuading me from my position. Here is my position:
I think property taxes are acceptable only if their use is strictly confined to services that protect the property being taxed. Iâm ok paying taxes on my property if it is only used for
- Prosecuting property crimes
- Defending my property from foreign threats (i.e. national guard not an offensive military)
- Services like fire departments in crowded cities where fires can quickly spread across property lines if not extinguished
I actually agree with most of what you said in the post she linked me of yours. Most of your arguments seem to be about using property taxes as arbitrary funds rather than the kind of use I argue is acceptable. Your 6th point is more general but also an argument against the Federal government directly taxing property which seems reasonable to me. I donât think the Federal government should be raising any taxes directly from State citizens without going through the States, though thatâs another discussion. Your 5th and 7th points refer to âCADâ which Iâm not familiar with. Iâm certainly against regulations and fees being applied to citizens by unelected bureaucrats so I suspect I would agree with you based on the context of what youâre saying.
Thanks for taking the time if you read all that. Good day.
Thanks for taking the time to go through it. Itâs a work in progress.
What it comes down to, ultimately, is that you canât own something thatâs taxed. If there is the ability for you to lose it if you fail to pay the tax, then thatâs extortion and you donât really own it. They own it and let you use it for a lease payment. In other words, itâs impossible to truly be free when you always have an overlord of some sort.
As for services youâre okay being taxed for, thatâs a personal issue. If youâre okay with it and Sue isnât, should she be forced to pay it as well? Or should it be relegated to some sort of voluntary service?
The defense against foreign threats can be addressed in other ways, as it is already. Thereâs nothing about property tax that helps defend against aggression. Itâs mostly about schools and local services. As someone who homeschooled starting in the 90s, I never took advantage of what I was taxed for. And thank God I didnât. The school system is a disaster that I shouldnât have to continue funding. Itâs not just sub-par, but has become an instrument against both the fundamentals of our country and what I believe.
This is where going to consumption taxes makes sense, if there must be a tax. At least then I can opt out of it, if I choose not to âconsumeâ whatâs taxed. Right now I could be 100% self-sufficient on my property and still lose it to the county.
Your argument in paragraph 2 isnât really an argument against property taxes. Itâs an argument against taxes in general. If you pay income tax, do you really own your labor? If you pay sales tax do you really own your assets? So if weâre going to make the moral argument, which it sounds to me like youâre making then we have to be honest and contrast anarchy with government rule. If Iâm wrong then Iâd love for you to make a logically consistent argument for another kind of tax that the government could run on. Voluntary fees donât count. A government canât run on voluntary fees. A service can, but if you turn the government into a series of private services that is anarchy with bells and whistles.
If Susan doesnât wish to pay for a fire service and I do, Iâm fine with that⌠as long as weâre not neighbors. I want to live around other people who have agreed to make a best effort to put the fire out before it spreads to my house. Thatâs why I love localized governments. We should move to where people think like us and then vote for rules that protect us all⌠or none of us. What I donât want, is a system where protecting everyone around you (by paying for a fire service) makes you the biggest economic loser in the area. Thatâs just a race to the bottom.
Iâm not saying that property taxes currently defend against aggression. Iâm saying thatâs one of the only valid uses for them, specifically when the aggression is likely to involve theft or destruction of property. If we had no military defense whatsoever there would likely be raiding and property would be one of the first things to suffer, thus thereâs a mutual interest in defense by property owners specifically.
Since it sounds like youâre ok with a consumption taxes tell me this. If I have chickens and my neighbor has corn, what business is it of the government if we want to trade? What gives the government the right to tell me that I canât share what Iâve raised with my own hands with someone else in exchange for something they made with their own hands unless we give some of it to the government? I get that it works out better for you, but thatâs not exactly a moral argument like the one you made against property taxes. Youâre basically saying that because you can pawn the cost of running the government off onto people who want to exchange things you should be allowed to. How is that fair to the person who wants to be a traveling trader instead of a homesteader? Why should they pay for the government to protect you?
Or are you an anarchist? If youâre an anarchist who thinks we shouldnât have a government at all, Iâd be happy to discuss the merits of that philosophy with you.
If you barter, then thatâs between you and whoever you barter with.
The government should only charge for services it provides. And none of those services should be compulsory.
Where we live, the fire station is volunteer. It works well. Historically, thatâs how fire stations worked. People were happy to support them. Early 20th century Valparaiso de Chile is an amazing example of where this worked wonderfully, with various sectors supporting fire stations throughout the city.
I guess you could call me a practical anarchist. Philosophically, everyone should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they donât harm anyone else. That would include environmental issues, since they harm everyone around them. But I also recognize that weâre not going to ever get rid of government. So my preference is that Iâm left alone as much as possible. But I donât want to get into a big discussion on that. Itâs simply an answer to your question.
Back to property tax - itâs a form of slavery. Either I work the governmentâs land, or I have my own. In essence, the government claims it owns it and I get to work it for a fee. If I improve it, then the government takes more from me. Ultimately, the more successful I am, the more the state punishes me.
Well darn. Iâve always wanted to meet a true anarchist because I have two challenges that Iâm curious how anarchists would answer. I guess if you donât want to get into that then continuing the discussion is pointless. I canât challenge the foundations of your philosophy without âgetting into itâ so I guess weâll just have to agree to disagree.
Itâs been a pleasure discussing this with you. Have a good one!
1 Like
Thatâs a state issue, not a federal one.
I actually donât agree to disagree on property taxes. Itâs the most evil of all taxes, for it renders it impossible to own land. It forces us into a form of serfdom or fealty to overlords. The next one in line would probably be inheritance/death tax, but itâs easily circumvented if someone has that much wealth.
I do appreciate the civil discussion. And I donât really mind talking about freedom, but this just didnât seem like the right thread to explore it outside of property taxes. Maybe start another thread?
2 Likes
I hope everyone hear considers a root cause solution to all these issues. Understand in 1913 , Amendment 16 destroyed the Citizens Right to control taxation. Amendment 16 is one of only two Amendments that took Rights away from the Citizenry. The solution is as simple as the cause. Please support and vote for:
1 Like
If youâre down to discuss anarchy but not on this thread there are direct message features on this site. Shall I dm you? This discussion probably doesnât belong in any policy proposition anyway.
To by clear, my argument is that property taxes are not that unique from other taxes as all taxes separate you from your property without any justification beyond the need to fund governmental functions. I donât see any reason why your static property is any more sacred than property in flux (sales or âconsumptionâ taxes) or your labor. If property taxes make you a surf then income taxes make you a slave. This kind of extrapolation could be made for any tax. Allowing tax-free bartering effectively eliminates sales tax. Why would anyone trade in dollars if trading for gold instead made their taxes disappear?
Thus in my view, you defend either anarchy or another tax. Otherwise I donât buy your argument against property tax. Someone has to fund the government or we have to successfully agree to not create one.
These tax issues are the result of Amendment 16 passed in 1913.
Please consider supporting and voting for:
1 Like
Direct Message = OK!
Then, by your words, that you are OK with paying property taxes to help with community investment; perhaps a compromise can be reached so that those who âare OK paying part of their wealth to the communityâ can VOLUNTARILY keep doing so, and call it a âtaxâ of sorts. That would keep them content, yes?
Certainly you didnât mean to say that you were OK with paying property taxes, while secretly meaning that you were OK with the State forcefully robbing wealth from others against their wishes, in order for them to cover community services, right?
I think the main topic of his post is not whether someone is OK with being a good samaritan, or how community services should be funded, but rather: Why state govenments should stop forcefully extorting property owners of their incomes every year for property that they have already paid for outright. Right now, its extortion of new income yearly (ANOTHER FORM OF INCOME TAX) under the guise of a âproperty taxââŚtomorrow it could be extortion under the guise of a âtooth taxâ where you pay the state for every tooth in your mouthâŚYEARLY.
And likewise, you might be OK with a new âtooth taxâ to cover community expense, yet others may not like to be extorted monies for their privately-owned teeth. Extortion is the problem hereâŚState sanctioned forceful theft of private yearly income, based on property assessed values. What percentage of that stolen money going to whatever socialist service is really not the point, right? One should not steal from others, donate 10% to the church, and then call it a good deed because it went to the church, and the church is good, so the evil deed must somehow now be âgoodâ. Its OK to argue that the church needs a source of funding in order to continue its services to the community; however, it is not OK to translate that into justifying state-enforced theft of your neighborâs yearly income so that the church can have it (irregardless if you willingingly give donations to the church because you are such a nice person, right?)
Just because someone doesnât like their income extorted yearly to cover church expenses, does not translate into them not liking the church. Broad assumptions and mixing meanings convolute the arguement here against the moral, legal, and ethical issues surrounding state-forced extortion of private annual income based on the guise of unrealized, arbitrary, and state-assigned property values. Right is right & wrong is wrong, right? âExtortionâ can NEVER be right or just. It is criminal.
And frankly, if the state was told by the federal government that property taxes were unconstitutional and should be ended, the state would have an additional source of revenue in place inside a week or two to cover the lost extortion revenue. The sky will not fall because of it, like many socialists tend to espouse, and the criminal extortion tactics against Americans will finally end.
1 Like
The biggest government scam EVER
3 Likes
Everything else you buy it becomes yours but your land that youâve paid over $100,000 you still have to pay taxes. Makes no sense.
3 Likes