Why does property tax in a free nation exist?

[Geo Patric]

I have a well on my property that is totally independent of the city water system. Tying my house into it is as simple as hooking a hose to the well on one end and my house on the other. How am I dependent on govt with this well? I am facinated to hear this answer.

good grief.

you should take more time in your reading and think about what you read. water was introduced into the discussion on taxes because it provides a concrete example of a 'commons'; that is, a resource that is owned in common by everyone. Common ownership helps to explain how it is that we have to pay for what we ostensibly own.

i never said that you were "dependent on govt" for your water. what i said is that you do not OWN that water individually. you own it collectively with the other citizens of your state and of the nation.

because you have ownership of it, yes, you can tap into it. I do not know where in the country you are, but the basic idea is pretty much the same everywhere - it is yours - you can take what you need; a reasonable amount for personal use. because you do not own it absolutely or individually, if you want more than is considered reasonable, you will need to get permission from those with whom you share this particular resource, those downstream of you. now, of course, there may be hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands downstream of you. so... you are not going to go knocking on every door and asking. and no, if there is one person who does not want you to take it, they cannot stop you alone.

no, what happens is you get an allowance from the state. and you pay for it. if water is very abundant where you are, probably no one notices or cares, perhaps you get the allowance for free. this does not negate the principle of commons, though, only that monitoring of use is unnecessary. if it is scarce, they may not give it to you at all.

now, what probably ACTUALLY happens is you dig a hole in yer yard, line it with concrete and fill it up and go swimming. if you take the water from your (unmetered) well and it impacts the neighbors downstream, someone complains, a state water dept type person comes to your door and tells you you can't do that.

i suppose it is understandable that you find yourself running off the rails, as there are those who simply cannot let go of cherished notions. here, we have a handful of anti-government types who cannot grasp the simple notion that the gummint is not making a decision about whether you may or may not take water from your well. it is We The People, in the pursuit of our own liberties, protecting the rights of others by regulating our usage.

now, are you sufficiently fascinated?

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

How does the government's *possible* regulation mean I won't do it, anyway?

If the gov wants to bawlk there's a proper procedure and method - and I, also, have recourse and a proper procedure and method. Just because the government *does sometimes* doesn't mean that it does all the time - nor that it cares enough to bother.

Thus - unless they intercede - my water is my water until it goes to the neighbor's back yard. . .and unless they 1) notice 2) take proper *action* to intervene and halt my action they have no bearing on the issue.

All things are possible - until effort is made to bring it to a hault.

exactly - almost.... your water is our water and you get to take what you need.

what makes it possible and rightful is that 'they' are acting in our stead to protect our rights and liberties.

geo.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

exactly - almost.... your water is our water and you get to take what you need.

what makes it possible and rightful is that 'they' are acting in our stead to protect our rights and liberties.

geo.

Exactly.

It is *ours* - and they (government) will only exert regulation *if* that becomes necessary.

 

[Geo Patric]

Exactly.

It is *ours* - and they (government) will only exert regulation *if* that becomes necessary.

yeah.

i made a big hooorrah about 'they' being 'us' hoping someone would trip over it and come back with the response that THAT is the philosophy but not exactly the practice... this is the 'limited government' position... and of course, it is right. the very same fellas that instantiated a 'government of the people' also warned against the size and power of 'government'. this seems counter-intuitive to a people that were expanding so rapidly and even aggressively.

we do have to be able to separate the 'institution' of government from the idea of self government. trouble is, most of us have a capacity to hold only one concept at a time and we end up seeing the government only as the institution, as 'them'.

the limitations of government is a legitiamate argument if we keep in mind that we are limiting our abilities to balance our separate interests at the same time. This was one of the earliest and painful lessons of our early governments - the VERY limited government that the first 'republicans' put together didn't work out as well as they had hoped. The federalists gained greater influence because it was necessary to build more power into the national government. We nearly lost the revolutionary war because of an inability to organize the disparate states in a concerted effort. The War of 1812 resulted in further federal power. The civil war pretty much decided the issue. A nation that wants to act as a nation needs a national government.

but that demands greater democracy, a principle that has gained greater emphasis also. but THAT requires participation and a degree of faith in our fellow citizens... a faith that is badly lacking, in my opinion

geo.

 

[Winston Smith]

no, i do not think that your property is publicly owned. it is, in every sense of the word, private property with the context of a nation that is publicly owned.

again, i am no lawyer, no expert on property law. What I have been saying about natural resources such as water as public property or commons is true as law. when we get to private property... it gets a trifle more abstract... and if you want to use the term 'specious', well, i cannot argue.

again, the following is mostly my speculation. much of it is not, so far as i know, law but it is a way of understanding how what is law makes sense.

the clothing on your back is certainly your personal private property in a very absolute sense. no one may rightfully take it from you or restrict your usage of it... except in the public domain. you gotta keep a certain amount of it on in most places that i know of.

your car... take to mexico if ya want... it is yours. take a sledge hammer to it, let it rust away in the yard or as long as your are not endangering anyone else in doing so, set that damn thing aflame and toast marshmallows over it. it is yours. you can do with it as you like.

it is that last bit, it think that helps to make the distinction between public and private, private and commons.

you own the land you bought. it is yours. In many countries, you would not own what is below the surface, that would be 'commons'. In the U.S. you do not necessarily own what is below the surface - water, as was mentioned, belongs to all of us. Oil, coal, minerals may or may not belong to you. If you do not own the stuff (mineral rights), though you do own the rights to access that stuff if it is done on your land. you can restrict access and tell em to go to hell if you like or let em drill and charge them for it.

but, your land is not quite as absolutely yours as your car is. you have a responsibility to the rest of us in how your use and treat the land. we can restrict how your use your land. we can zone it for particular usages, for instance. we can tell you cannot use it to raise cattle if you live in the freaking suburbs. we can keep your from damaging its usefulness. sow your fields with salt and you will likely go to jail and pay a hefty fine. and, even if there is a butt load of oil we can tell you cannot drill it or allow anyone else to drill. yes, it IS yours individually but it is within what is ours collectively.

we tossed the two notions of ownership of property and ownership of the rights to property earlier. in effect, ownership of some property can only be real to the degree that you own the rights to it. You can say you own the property your house sits on because you can restrict access to it (almost) absolutely.

you cannot, though, own it in the absolute sense that you own your car... you cannot take your land to mexico. aside from the practical difficulties, WE would not let you. You would be taking something from us.

does that make any sense?

geo.

Yeah, it makes sense. Water is a little different from land, though, since its use is naturally more communal. I think a lot of this comes down to different meanings of "use." To say you pay more if you use more begs the question of what use is, and I don't think the meaning is altogether the same now as it was in the Middle Ages. Both water law and general property law have changed with the times. What was fair in one age isn't necessarily fair in another.

For example, there are vocations that contribute a great deal to society without bringing much financial reward. Let's say I'm a teacher and I inherit a piece of land where I grew up and where I want to raise my family, but I can't afford to pay the taxes. The land itself brings me no profit because it's not put to economic use, nor will it ever be used in that sense by the person I'm forced to sell it to. It's residential. So, it's not as if the tax can be justified as encouraging productivity. In that case, I don't see any legitimate policy purpose for the tax. The only purpose seems to be to segregate different social classes.

 

[Geo Patric]

I think a lot of this comes down to different meanings of "use."

yes, i think it does. Use, in the philosophical sense that I have been using it is simply removing anything from use by another. The water you use (possess) i cannot use.

What was fair in one age isn't necessarily fair in another... there are vocations that contribute a great deal to society without bringing much financial reward. ... So, it's not as if the tax can be justified as encouraging productivity.

i think, again, our more specific quantification of "use" is important. it it not so much what benefit "use" delivers to the the possessor as it is that which it denies everyone else. And not as a 'commodity' so much as a rightful use/denial of 'common' resources. And, yes, it think changes over time do not so much change the principle as oblige new understandings of its application.

You and I live in a world where EVERYTHING is owned. The only way that you can acquire anything is to take it from someone else, usually by giving up something that you own which usually involves your expending a degree of your own freedom in order to do so... to work for another to obtain things. When those things are ostensibly yours (as a matter of 'commons'), it begs the legitimacy of the obligation. When you are the 'owner' of what everyone needs and (again, philosophically) shares, the obligation may be said to shift... from him who needs to him who has. Yeah, I know, sounds like "socialism" (**shiver**).

In that case, I don't see any legitimate policy purpose for the tax. The only purpose seems to be to segregate different social classes.

well, now we are really getting down to cases, aren't we?

actually, the result (and, arguably, the intent) is just the opposite - to rectify the material disparity inherent in 'class' based on ownership - and Liberalism is, indeed, based, firstly, on Private Property. Those who claim that taxes, especially 'progressive tax systems' are 'socialist' are right, at least if we use the definition of socialism we settled on earlier.

yeah... "materialism". Marx didn't invent the either word or the social discipline. Capitalism is a "materialist" theory, too... it deals with the how and why of the distribution of material goods.

geo.

 

[Goobieman]

good grief.
you should take more time in your reading and think about what you read. water was introduced into the discussion on taxes because it provides a concrete example of a 'commons'...

This is absolutely false. This has NOTHING to do with the reason wahy water was introdiced into the conversation. The fact that you continute to choose to fail to recognize this continues to reinforce the obviousness of your complete lack of desire to discuss the issue at hand, wanting only to pontificate on your chosen subject.

That you can obtain water without the government providing it to you proves that the government is NOT the only way to get water.
Any and all discussion of government regulation of water or water rights or any such similar things has absolutely no bearing on any of that

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Thread: Why does property tax in a free nation exist?

Because the nation has lost freedom.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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?

Sales taxes, yes. Income taxes, no.

Sales taxes encourage the government to create a business friendly environment, since lost business equals lost tax revenue.

Income taxes are less directly connected to the local economy, and more personally intrusive.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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.

So, you're saying that a man who worked his whole life and paid his taxes should be forced off his home when the greedy bastards in government decide to raise property taxes to the point where he can no longer pay?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Property taxes are collected to pay for government services. Or would you rather live in a community with no police, no fire department, no schools, unpaved roads, etc.?

Police are a function of government, and should be the first priority of sales tax revenue.

Fire departments should be funded by those who carry fire insurance, as all people owning property should be required to pay. Privately provided insurance offered on the free market.

Education is the responsibility of the parent of the child and not the duty of the property owner. There is no constitutional authority for federally funded education.

Roads should be rightly paid for by the owners of the vehicles driving on them, not the property owners they border.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If you can't pay what you owe for the protection and maintanance of your community, then what business do you have being allowed to live there?

That's one way to keep the black people out of Beverly Hills.

 

[Geo Patric]

QUOTE=Goobieman;1058965142]This is absolutely false. This has NOTHING to do with the reason wahy water was introdiced into the conversation.

man, when are you gonna pull that stick outta yer hole?

it is not false. I used water as an example of 'common property'. I did. I introduced it as such. Privatization of water was first mentioned by Obvious Child in response to the fatuously obvious statement by yer cohort in niggling irrelevance regarding getting what you want without the gummint.

and now your are gurgling the same irrelevant slop.

sure, you can obtain water without the government I never said you could not. what i DID say is that you do not own the water as it exists in the place from which you get it. not by law and not by hundreds of years of tradition and not by simple reason.

the premise i am arguing and that you deliberately and obstinately refuse to address is that when you pay taxes, you are not paying the gummint to do something for you. The government is not your waiter for the evening. The government is the representative of your fellow citizens.

we pay taxes to provide for the general welfare. In part, that includes compensating our fellow citizens for our use of commonly held natural resources. We pay them to the government because paying to each and every of our fellows is impractical.

you think not? then argue it. or don't. but please, quit whining.

you can get water without going to the government to get permission. but if you do so outside of legal provision you are, obviously, doing so at least extra-legally and quite possibly illegally.

because you do not own the water. We, as a People, do. that is simple fact.

you have probably made more posts in this thread than any one else and you have YET to say anything of substance. You whine and carp and contribute nothing aside from the childish whine "i can do whatever i wanna do!".

so, go, do it and let well intended people have reasoned discussion.
geo.

 

[Goobieman]

man, when are you gonna pull that stick outta yer hole?

Yes, I know the truth hurts - but that's no reason for you to get all petulant.

it is not false. I used water as an example of 'common property'

Which, as you continue to refuse to accept, is irrelevant to the conversation.
That you can obtain water without the government providing it to you proves that the government is NOT the only way to get water.
Any and all discussion of government regulation of water or water rights or any such similar things has absolutely no bearing on any of that

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, I know the truth hurts - but that's no reason for you to get all petulant.


Which, as you continue to refuse to accept, is irrelevant to the conversation.
That you can obtain water without the government providing it to you proves that the government is NOT the only way to get water.
Any and all discussion of government regulation of water or water rights or any such similar things has absolutely no bearing on any of that

Dude.

He's made it clear he has ZERO interest in arguing the point on its own, and that he's going to argue his own irrelevant angle no matter what you say, so just let him bang his highchair in solitude . . .

 

[Goobieman]

Dude.
He's made it clear he has ZERO interest in arguing the point on its own, and that he's going to argue his own irrelevant angle no matter what you say, so just let him bang his highchair in solitude . . .

The Highchair of Solitude. That's funny.

Oh... I would have been able to collect untold amounts of water on Monday, when Earl brushed by, had I the inclination (and the barrels) - further disproving the idiotic notion that you cannot get water unless the government provides it.

Never mind that the de-salinization plant that -did- provide my water was privately owned...