• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does property tax in a free nation exist?

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You buy a house. You pay it off. But you have to pay a tax on it. This is wrong. If you don't pay your property taxes you property can be seized. Which means we're not free people and we don't really own anything.

Thoughts?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,893
Reaction score
11,910
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well you are not free, since you have to follow the law of the land. In fact I would claim that no one is really free anywhere in the world since everyone has to follow some sort of authority rule.. laws, gunpoint and so on.

As for property... I dont like property taxes, but I do understand why they were put in place and why they are needed.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They were "put in place" when people made direct income off their land by working it. That is no longer the case for most people.

Still, as a revenue source (and as a property owner), I wouldn't have a problem with it if non-payment didn't mean losing the land.

When you lose the land for non-payment, then yes, the government actually owns all property and you are nothing but a renter.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,777
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You buy a house. You pay it off. But you have to pay a tax on it. This is wrong. If you don't pay your property taxes you property can be seized. Which means we're not free people and we don't really own anything.

Thoughts?
Out of curiosity, would you still object to the same amount of taxation in another form and for the same purpose (usually property taxes are used to pay for county stuff), such as a sales tax or income tax?

It seems to me that either way, if you fail to pay taxes, they can take stuff and auction it, no matter what form the tax is in. Not sure why there is a distinction being made that makes this sort of tax better or worse than others.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You buy a house. You pay it off. But you have to pay a tax on it. This is wrong. If you don't pay your property taxes you property can be seized. Which means we're not free people and we don't really own anything.

Thoughts?
I see your point. It's not too unusual for older people to have to move from their family homes because they can no longer afford the real estate taxes. This happens all too often in the Chicago area. Here's what happens: a couple has lived in their home for 35 years, let's say. Their neighborhood, over the years, has become a very desireable place to live -- usually because of excellent general location and excellent schools. The neighborhoods suddenly become targets for "knock-downs." The land becomes so valuable that people buy homes just for the lot they sit on. This results in the value of the land itself becoming outrageously expensive. Somebody buys a home for $250,000 and knocks it down. Nowwww, the land itself is worth $250K without a house on it. The assessors step in and begin ratcheting up the value basis on which taxes are levied, and it doesn't take long before people with ordinary incomes are really strapped to pay their taxes.

The solution, as it always is, is to stop spending. Why don't we get that?
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Because freedom is a continuum, not something you either have or don't have. We're relatively free, but not so free that we don't have to pay property tax, nor should we be.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Because freedom is a continuum, not something you either have or don't have. We're relatively free, but not so free that we don't have to pay property tax, nor should we be.
What's so special about property tax that we "shouldn't" be free from paying it?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You buy a house. You pay it off. But you have to pay a tax on it. This is wrong. If you don't pay your property taxes you property can be seized. Which means we're not free people and we don't really own anything.

Thoughts?
Yea it's pretty much bull****.

How the **** can you be taxed on something that wasn't earned or realized.
Makes no sense.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What's so special about property tax that we "shouldn't" be free from paying it?
I suppose it's the same thing that makes you so special that you don't have to pay your government for keeping your land free from invaders, and the surrounding milieu free of crime and litter.

That is to say: nothing. It's simply a tax, and a perfectly justified one.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Out of curiosity, would you still object to the same amount of taxation in another form and for the same purpose (usually property taxes are used to pay for county stuff), such as a sales tax or income tax?

It seems to me that either way, if you fail to pay taxes, they can take stuff and auction it, no matter what form the tax is in. Not sure why there is a distinction being made that makes this sort of tax better or worse than others.
Personally I wouldn't object to another form of taxation.

Property taxes placed a fixed value on something that is subjective in value.
It also has the problem of being constant, without taking into consideration the person's ability to pay.

While I do favor taxation for everyone, I do think that it should more realistically reflect reality.
In a down economy some people would need that money to buy needs for their family.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I suppose it's the same thing that makes you so special that you don't have to pay your government for keeping your land free from invaders, and the surrounding milieu free of crime and litter.
Perhaps you should refrain from making all kinds of assumptions about people you don't know jack **** about, ye who have been for for mere days. In fact, you should probably pay more attention to what's said by those people in THIS VERY THREAD if you want to opine about those people.

That is to say: nothing. It's simply a tax, and a perfectly justified one.
You said people shouldn't be free of it. No one's suggesting a tax revolt, but perhaps a change in policy. If you're so "positivist" about things, why would you object to that if that's what people want?
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Perhaps you should refrain from making all kinds of assumptions about people you don't know jack **** about, ye who have been for for mere days. In fact, you should probably pay more attention to what's said by those people in THIS VERY THREAD if you want to opine about those people.



You said people shouldn't be free of it. No one's suggesting a tax revolt, but perhaps a change in policy. If you're so "positivist" about things, why would you object to that if that's what people want?
I hear a lot of whining on your part, and not a lot of much else.

Is there anything you actually wanted to address, or would you like to keep sniveling? Personally, I have all the day, and I'm fine with either option. You wanted to know what was special about the tax, and I told you.

As far as opining about the people in this thread goes, I have every right to do so, and it seems that there really isn't anything special about you. So, as ever, I'm right after all.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I hear a lot of whining on your part, and not a lot of much else.

Is there anything you actually wanted to address, or would you like to keep sniveling? Personally, I have all the day, and I'm fine with either option. You wanted to know what was special about the tax, and I told you.

As far as opining about the people in this thread goes, I have every right to do so, and it seems that there really isn't anything special about you. So, as ever, I'm right after all.
And now, you used a lot of words to say nothing at all. You certainly never explained what was "special" about it. And I already "addressed" what I find onerous about property tax, and it's a perfectly reasonable objection. Would you like to discuss that or not? Or would you rather continue to pretend I never said it?

And answer the question -- why "shouldn't" there be a change in tax policy?

So, decide now -- are you going to respond substantively, or are you going to continue making it personal? Up to you.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
And now, you used a lot of words to say nothing at all. You certainly never explained what was "special" about it. And I already "addressed" what I find onerous about property tax, and it's a perfectly reasonable objection. Would you like to discuss that or not? Or would you rather continue to pretend I never said it?

And answer the question -- why "shouldn't" there be a change in tax policy?

So, decide now -- are you going to respond substantively, or are you going to continue making it personal? Up to you.
You, comrade, have failed to read my posts. I said quite clearly that there is nothing "special," whatever that is supposed to mean, about it.

I also said, as anyone can go and see for themselves, that the government keeps your land free from invasion, safe from crime, as well as your roads paved and your community's children educated, etc. They have every right to tax the land on which you live, and if you can't pay what you owe to the state, that land ought to be forfeit.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You, comrade, have failed to read my posts. I said quite clearly that there is nothing "special," whatever that is supposed to mean, about it.
:shrug: If there's nothing special about them, then we can change the policy and make ourselves "free" of them any time we, as a community, like. We absolutely can discuss said changes all day long.

I also said, as anyone can go and see for themselves, that the government keeps your land free from invasion, safe from crime, as well as your roads paved and your community's children educated, etc. They have every right to tax the land on which you live, and if you can't pay what you owe to the state, that land ought to be forfeit.
And we have every right to discuss a change in that policy, because indeed, the government governs at the consent of the governed.

You assume that if someone raises a specific objection to a specific tax, they must be against all tax. And you also assume that raising such an objection is also saying that they shouldn't have to pay the tax even when it's on the books.

No one said that. Those are pure, unadulterated assumptions on your part, based on nothing but your personal preconceptions about people you don't know, and those assumptions are a steaming pile of manure you quite voluntarily jumped into with both feet.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
:shrug: If there's nothing special about them, then we can change the policy and make ourselves "free" of them any time we, as a community, like. We absolutely can discuss said changes all day long.



And we have every right to discuss a change in that policy, because indeed, the government governs at the consent of the governed.

You assume that if someone raises a specific objection to a specific tax, they must be against all tax. And you also assume that raising such an objection is also saying that they shouldn't have to pay the tax even when it's on the books.

No one said that. Those are pure, unadulterated assumptions on your part, based on nothing but your personal preconceptions about people you don't know, and those assumptions are a steaming pile of manure you quite voluntarily jumped into with both feet.
I believe you misunderstand me, the tax is justified as is.

There is nothing to revolt against, nothing to reform. I do consider raising objections to it to be a battle against lawful order of sorts, and I resent it.

In any case, I was not originally talking to you, or addressing your original post, so it's no wonder I was under the impression you were advocating a less extreme (but no less incorrect) position.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I believe you misunderstand me, the tax is justified as is.
No, that was abundantly clear.

There is nothing to revolt against, nothing to reform. I do consider raising objections to it to be a battle against lawful order of sorts, and I resent it.
Well, thank you for your opinion, Emperor, but I don't give a rat's ass what you "resent." In a free society, we discuss changing the law all the time, and we criticize those things which we find to be bad policy.

Perhaps that wouldn't be the case in your ideal order, but fortunately, we don't live under that order, and we're free to disucss anything we like. And you're certainly free to resent it, too, but in turn, we're free to laugh at you for saying it as though it should have any bearing whatsoever on what we decide to discuss or criticize.

In any case, I was not originally talking to you, or addressing your original post, so it's no wonder I was under the impression you were advocating a less extreme (but no less incorrect) position.
Yeah, and all I did was ask you a simple, quite relevant question about what you said. I guess you "resented" that, too.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, that was abundantly clear.



Well, thank you for your opinion, Emperor, but I don't give a rat's ass what you "resent." In a free society, we discuss changing the law all the time, and we criticize those things which we find to be bad policy.

Perhaps that wouldn't be the case in your ideal order, but fortunately, we don't live under that order, and we're free to disucss anything we like. And you're certainly free to resent it, too, but in turn, we're free to laugh at you for saying it as though it should have any bearing whatsoever on what we decide to discuss or criticize.



Yeah, and all I did was ask you a simple, quite relevant question about what you said. I guess you "resented" that, too.
Yes, you did, and I answered it.

Of course, I answered it in a tone that was meant to reflect the opinions you seemed to hold, but I did answer it. Since I wasn't talking to you to begin with, I will not be apologizing for the misunderstanding.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, you answered it in a tone which showed the steaming pile of manure of assumptions you made about my opinions. That's already been addressed.

I could not possibly care less about an "apology" from you.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, you answered it in a tone which showed the steaming pile of manure of assumptions you made about my opinions. That's already been addressed.

I could not possibly care less about an "apology" from you.
I wish I had the temerity to chastise people for misinterpreting what I say, and to choose whining incessantly about it against clarifying my views.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And I wish you hadn't responded to a simple question with guns blazing about all sorts of unreasonable, smarmy little assumptions on your part, but I guess we're both disappointed in you today.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You buy a house. You pay it off. But you have to pay a tax on it. This is wrong. If you don't pay your property taxes you property can be seized. Which means we're not free people and we don't really own anything.
Thoughts?
This is what happens when the state develops an insatiable hunger for revenue, driven by the people of the state's insatiable desire for services from the state.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
And I wish you hadn't responded to a simple question with guns blazing about all sorts of unreasonable, smarmy little assumptions on your part, but I guess we're both disappointed in you today.
I did turn out to be half-right. You are, after all, both anti-law and order and unwilling to correct simple misperceptions.

I can't say I'm disappointed in myself, no, only you, amicus.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And he's back to the assumptions. I'm talking about the governed coming together to change a governing policy (quite lawfully), and he says I'm "anti-law and order." (Oh, wait; I forgot -- in your order, you can't even discuss change without being anti-government and getting you all resentful.)

Suggestion: when you hit bottom, don't keep digging.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
And he's back to the assumptions. I'm talking about the governed coming together to change a governing policy (quite lawfully), and he says I'm "anti-law and order." (Oh, wait; I forgot -- in your order, you can't even discuss change without being anti-government and getting you all resentful.)

Suggestion: when you hit bottom, don't keep digging.
Your suggestion is a bit silly, considering that once you hit bottom, you couldn't keep digging even if you wanted to.

Also, you're quite right. I do consider arguing against clearly justified systems to be rabblerousing of the lowest sort. Whether it's staging a coup, or trying to undo crucial institutions, I do take insurrection very seriously.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom