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?
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?
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.
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 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.What's so special about property tax that we "shouldn't" be free from paying it?
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.
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.
I hear a lot of whining on your part, and not a lot of much else.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.
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.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.
I believe you misunderstand me, the tax is justified as is.: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.
Yes, you did, and I answered it.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.
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.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.
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.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 did turn out to be half-right. You are, after all, both anti-law and order and unwilling to correct simple misperceptions.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.
Your suggestion is a bit silly, considering that once you hit bottom, you couldn't keep digging even if you wanted to.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?