Help North Dakota ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 02:32 AM

North Dakota uses the following logo for their state tourism ad campaign:

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/images/ndlegendary.png

I think it's a great logo, one that may be quite fitting, because as many of you know, North Dakota may become "Truly Legendary", as the first state to finally abolish the property tax once and for all, and make property ownership a sovereign right, and not a conditional privilege, with property forever held for ransom by government.

California passed Prop 13, but left that property tax camel's nose squarely in the tent. It did not go far enough, and what a disaster California is, with idiot detractors actually blaming Prop 13 for many of the state's woes, with no mention or criticism of the spend-happy fools in state government who are always the problem, and never the solution.

North Dakota is the ONE state now poised to pave the way for the rest - a single haven from perpetual rent payments - where property actually can be owned once it is paid for, without government holding ultimate title your land, your property, and the rent you must pay on any improvements you make.

I'm not just posting this as a matter of general interest here. I feel very passionately about this, and I'm actually asking for help on what I think a matter of deep principle that affects us all. The property tax is the most hated tax of all, and for very good reasons, as it is also the most unfair and abused tax of all, and the only tax that doesn't take into account one's ability to pay. At the very least, I am asking my friends here, and for those interested in seeing this become a really to help spread the word.

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/images/icons/facebooksm.png
Like their Facebook page - post your support. You can take it off your personal wall after if you want, but give them a boost - show your support.
(http://facebook/empowerthetaxpayer)

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/images/icons/youtubesm.png
Like their YouTube videos, (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA8BC4C7CD4B0BFB0) like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfGzW817Y3Q

Join their brand new forum (http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/forum), post links to their pages on other forums and in article comments - anything to help them spread the word.

Become a subscriber to their updates (from their front page).

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/images/email/yesm2.png (http://yesm2.com) Just enter your name and email address, and click Subscribe.

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/images/banners/yesm2banner.jpg (http://yesm2.com)

North Dakota is extremely conservative by national standards. Even the Democrats there are the more fiscally conservative "Blue Dog Democrat" types. So Measure 2 already has a great deal of natural groundswell support. But the opposition to M2 is fierce - led by two huge organizations slopping from the property tax trough from the left and the (supposed) right: The NEA (both ND and national) and the ND Chamber of Commerce (state only).

The fear-mongering lengths to which the opponents go, including outright lying about the measure, is astounding. And the media itself is, predictably, complicit. Not so much anti-M2, as that would make them unpopular with too many - but more of a "sweep it under the rug" kind of complicity, those in favor are simply ignored, but those against are given lots of attention.

The opposition group has a sizable war chest, and promises for more funding, all determined to defeat Measure 2 at all costs. The Empower group has no big funding at all to speak of. Theirs is more the "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" type funding - all personal, so ANY contribution (of ANY amount) you can make will be put to good use.

I firmly believe that helping North Dakotans in any way we can, is a way of paving the way to help ourselves.

Travlyr

03-13-2012, 03:45 AM

This is a great effort. North Dakota is leading the charge to freedom.

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 04:00 AM

This dude, Robert Hale, is saying that all property taxes "and" income taxes can be abolished. I haven't figured out how he figures it out. How does he get the money to pay for community services. Does it fall from the sky? Will the army and police walk around bars with collection boxes to fund these essential services?

In the remote chance he has, it will not stop land speculation which created two world-wide crashes in 1929 and 2008. In fact he will promote harmful land speculation.

He is a superficial thinker.

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 04:01 AM

This is a great effort. North Dakota is leading the charge to freedom.

Freedom for land speculators to bring down the economy again. Wow! Amazing.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 05:52 AM

This dude, Robert Hale, is saying that all property taxes "and" income taxes can be abolished. I haven't figured out how he figures it out. How does he get thw money to pay for community services.Doe it fall from the sky? Will the army and police walk around bars with collection boxes to fund these essential services?

First off, you can deep-six all the explicitly geolib/geoist propaganda in this thread, as we already have too many of those polluting and cluttering this forum. Don't clutter this thread with it - it's not your platform, not your opportunity to go off topic with your inane LVT ideas - which are already being debated elsewhere, and have their place - in other words, you are way out of line.

As for replacement of revenue, you could just read the site material for yourself, rather than act like you just fell from the sky yourself. In North Dakota, the state has multiple revenue streams - almost thirty of them in place, and the state dictates everyone of them - how they are collected, and how they are to be spent. The majority of local services are ALREADY paid for by those other streams.

Furthermore, North Dakota has already increased their rate of spending to multiples of CPI and personal income - they have a surplus, NONE of which is used to give property tax relief, and they have a big pork spending problem to boot. The amount that it takes to replace property tax revenue could easily come just from the pork that should not have been prioritized and spent in the first place. What Measure does is prioritize that spending. The legislature must first pay for local needs - and CANNOT condition the spending. Only afterward can it decide what pork goodies to divvy out. The difference is that it will be transparent - they won't be able to distance themselves from the perception that they had anything to do with property taxes, even though that is ENTIRELY dictated by the state - what mill rates can or must be levied, the minimums and maximums that apply, and how they are to be spent at the local level. And then they get to hide behind this, as if it's "local control", and only because the property is local, and the taxes are locally collected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfuz9Nvs5xQ

Again, STOW the geolibertarian dogma - this not your thread for that.

KMX

03-13-2012, 06:01 AM

Any jobs in ND?? I love more freedoms!! I might join the Lakota if nothing pans out LOL 4 real

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 06:15 AM

Any jobs in ND?? I love more freedoms!! I might join the Lakota if nothing pans out LOL 4 real

ND is FULL OF JOBS. Some of the lowest unemployment in the country. And you're not alone - I know MANY people (including yours truly) who would move to North Dakota IN A HEARTBEAT if they knew they could actually OWN their property, their land, and not have to rent from government what they've already paid for.

That's the one of the biggest arguments in favor of M2. A haven for capital flight from the rest of the country, as North Dakota becomes ONE BIG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE USA! Not too hard to sell both people and industries on coming to ND with a selling point like that.

Right now the ND Chamber of Commerce is FIERCELY opposed to this. And why? Because not only are they on the public dole, receiving public money and tax abatements (exemptions) for themselves, but they also get to play good-cop/bad-cop, as they go to bat for their favorite darling special interests, getting them tax breaks and public funds. Passage of Measure 2 means that they wouldn't have any more favoritism and free vacations to sell.

KMX

03-13-2012, 06:19 AM

Only bad thing is I hate the COLD!

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 06:25 AM

Only bad thing is I hate the COLD!

It's not so bad for me, I like four seasons, but all the paradise and great climate lands are overrun by the fiscally insane - turning up the heat, so to speak, making the bitter cold look like a Kincaid painting by comparison.

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 06:49 AM

ND is FULL OF JOBS. Some of the lowest unemployment in the country. And you're not alone - I know MANY people (including yours truly) who would move to North Dakota IN A HEARTBEAT if they knew they could actually OWN their property, their land, and not have to rent from government what they've already paid for.

Is that what they do there? You buy a place and then pay them rent as well?

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 06:55 AM

Again, STOW the geolibertarian dogma - this not your thread for that.

Note: geolibertarian has liberty in the name.

He wants private enterprise to flourish. Nice. He has a theory that is unrproven. Geonomics is 100% proven around the world, even in the USA. That promotes enterprise like fury. He is on the wrong track. He wants liberty, so Geonomics is for him.

Wow no one pays tax and all community services are paid for by whatever...well who ever pays for them...who is that?

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 07:03 AM

Note: geolibertarian has liberty in the name.

He wants private enterprise to flourish. Nice. He has a theory that is unrproven. Geonomics is 100% proven around the world, even in the USA. That promotes enterprise like fury. He is on the wrong track. He wants liberty, so Geonomics is for him.

Wow no one pays tax and all community services are paid for by whatever...well who ever pays for them...who is that?

Again - STOW IT. That doesn't mean use that as launching platform for arguments in favor. It means you are OFF TOPIC.

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 07:11 AM

Again - STOW IT. That doesn't mean use that as launching platform for arguments in favor. It means you are OFF TOPIC.

He is off-topic, and you. You are confused. He is promising Utopia. No taxes whatsoever. Yerr, yerr..sure!! The Commies said the same thing. It never worked too well. It did in parts but not in others, so they abandoned it.

He has no idea of macro economics. If he did he would be curtailing land speculation, not promoting it. as that caused two world-wide crashes You have to look at what this dude is proposing and analyse it. Not follow like sheep to a false Utopia. You will end being foreclosed.

WilliamC

03-13-2012, 07:13 AM

Again - STOW IT. That doesn't mean use that as launching platform for arguments in favor. It means you are OFF TOPIC.

Really Steve, you think you are dealing with rationality here?

I appreciate your persistence and patience but is there anything left for you to learn?

Not that it's any of my business but you strike me as someone who definitely has more profitable ways to spend his time than by being lulled into endless debates with communists.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 07:21 AM

Really Steve, you think you are dealing with rationality here?

I appreciate your persistence and patience but is there anything left for you to learn?

Not that it's any of my business but you strike me as someone who definitely has more profitable ways to spend his time than by being lulled into endless debates with communists.

I don't mind giving them a tumble - in their own threads, where it's their subject. And I consider it time well spent, because while they're busy trying to hammer their best points home, I'm busy honing my responses, because there are idiots out there in sufficient numbers who would buy into their hive minded thinking, and whole countries that would implement their ideas. It pays to be ready for that. So you're not just dealing with crackpots - you're dealing with crackpots who actually hit their marks at times, and could get their chances in the society/economy-manipulating barrel.

WilliamC

03-13-2012, 07:25 AM

I don't mind giving them a tumble - in their own threads, where it's their subject. And I consider it time well spent, because while they're busy trying to hammer their best points home, I'm busy honing my responses, because there are idiots out there in sufficient numbers who would buy into their hive minded thinking, and whole countries that would implement their ideas. It pays to be ready for that. So you're not just dealing with crackpots - you're dealing with crackpots who actually hit their marks at times, and could get their chances in the society/economy-manipulating barrel.

Well you certainly do an excellent job of presenting your position and I've enjoyed reading your responses, so far be it from me to tell you not to.

Sure you aren't trying for sainthood or something ;)

The Gold Standard

03-13-2012, 07:39 AM

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 07:49 AM

[QUOTE=WilliamC;4275221debates with communists.[/QUOTE]

They are moving into the USA. You have to convince them otherwise. Do you think Michael Moore is a commie?

JohnLVT

03-13-2012, 07:52 AM

Can one be a libertarian if you don't believe in property rights? I know you can be a socialist anarchist, but I thought libertarianism was based on property rights.

Incidentally, if North Dakota does this I will move there.

Yes, across the Red Sea to Utopia. They may have some success initially, but it would come crashing down at some point. Unless land speculation is dealt with it will crash.

Voluntary Man

03-13-2012, 07:57 AM

The Gold Standard

03-13-2012, 08:03 AM

Yes, across the Red Sea to Utopia. They may have some success initially, but it would come crashing down at some point. Unless land speculation is dealt with it will crash.

You didn't answer the question. Without property rights you have no rights period. All rights are derived from your right to your property. Can someone who doesn't believe people have rights be a libertarian? I'm not an expert on these philosophies, but I don't think so.

WilliamC

03-13-2012, 08:41 AM

If anyone here opposes this, you need to get the hell off of this forum, RIGHT NOW, because you are a Marxist, and have no business on a freedom forum!

Property Tax

Compulsory Schooling

Central Banking

Zoning

Income Tax

Planned Parenthood

CPS

Secular Humanism

If you support any of the above, you are a Marxist! Period. All of the above represent planks of the Communist Manifesto and did not exist in this country prior to 1848. You cannot support any part of the Communist Manifesto and still consider yourself an American patriot or conservative (neocon, yes; conservative, no).

So, if you're even thinking "but, how will we pay for..." go crawl back under whatever Marxist rock you crawled out from under, because you have zero RIGHT to any goods or services you can't figure out how to pay for without stolen money!

I'm a bit soft on secular humanism, since I'm an agnostic/atheist, but if by it you mean anything State supported or mandated then I'm against it too.

I would add anyone supporting gun possession laws (as opposed to gun use laws, which I do support, just because you can carry a gun doesn't mean you can fire it off willy-nilly without consequence wherever you are) to your list.

BuddyRey

03-13-2012, 08:49 AM

I love this idea! Is there anything substantive we can do to promote and support it from out of state?

WilliamC

03-13-2012, 09:12 AM

^^^^Find local ND politicians who are pushing it and donate to their campaigns.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 09:21 AM

I love this idea! Is there anything substantive we can do to promote and support it from out of state?

Definitely! I am, in every way I can think of. Buy their book (ebook available, link on the site - foreward by Ron Paul excerpted below), donate for sure - any amount helps, even five bucks - and generally "Like" their stuff and spread the word. There are 9 other states that are contemplating the same thing - ND is leading the charge, though, and has a great chance of passing it. Assuming the NEA and special interests don't mount a big enough fear and smear campaign.

FOREWARD

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/images/ronpaul.jpg

Individual liberty, limited government, and private property — these are the values that built America into the greatest country the world has ever known. Yet alarmingly in the U.S. of the 21st century, they are on the verge of extinction.

Over the past 70 years, our nation has been afflicted by an endless and ever-increasing assault from within. The perpetrator is not a terrorist network, or a crime ring. It is our own government. Through stifling tax hikes, regulatory schemes, and wasteful public spending binges, our government has been gradually extinguishing those traits that made America the land of the free and the home of the brave for independent-minded and innovative citizens the world over.

The property tax is the most complex, burdensome, costly, and unfair tax imposed by state and local government. There cannot be true liberty when citizens are not secure in their own homes. As long as the government can impose taxes on one’s property and enforce that exaction by confiscation of the property, there is no real freedom or security.

One of the most egregious effects of this tax is that it punishes citizens who improve their property. A person who upgrades his home and yard is often “rewarded” with a higher assessment and thus a larger tax to pay. This is far different from other taxes, which are based on income level or voluntary consumption of products.

I think that the organizers of the movement to abolish this tax are doing something quite “revolutionary” — in true keeping with what our forebearers did. As Brett Narloch points out in Chapter One of this book, our ancestors rebelled against taxation from the British and fought a war over it. America’s citizens must take it upon ourselves to reclaim that spirit of freedom that made our country great and allowed us to prosper and thrive. The passage of Measure 2, the North Dakota referendum to abolish property taxes, would do just that.

The arguments presented in this book are compelling. Of particular interest to me is the documentation demonstrating that the state does not need property tax revenue to function. In other words, there is no reason to hold on to the unstable and confiscatory real estate tax.

One feature I particularly like about Measure 2 is that it makes it mandatory for the state of North Dakota to “fully and properly” fund all its legally-imposed obligations, and forbids additional spending unless revenues are available. I hope this concept is adopted by other states and the U.S. Congress!

This is a very important moment, not only in North Dakota history, but in the future of the United States. If passed, Measure 2 will set an example of how citizens nationwide can retake control of their government.

Passage will show all citizens that they can have genuine security and sanctuary in their own homes. If the voters of North Dakota embrace Measure 2, it will ignite an already vital North Dakota economy, and the state will become a role model for the rest of the nation to follow.

I urge the people of North Dakota to take the step to free each and every person in North Dakota from having to forever “rent their home from the government” by voting for passage of Measure 2. Such a “revolutionary” act to free citizens from this onerous and unnecessary tax will have ramifications for property owners nationwide.

I applaud Empower the Taxpayer and all who are working to make this a reality. It is truly a vision to reclaim America.

- Congressman Ron Paul
Property Tax Revolution - It's Our Home, Not Theirs! (http://yesm2.com), by Charlene Nelson, Robert Hale & Brett Narloch

EDIT: Incidentally, there are no politicians involved, nor do their votes count in this any more or less than any other ND voter - this is a private citizens initiated referendum for a state constitutional amendment. So if you donate, donate directly to the YESM2.COM (http://yesm2.com) people - they're only ones making this possible, and will put that money directly toward getting this passed.

osan

03-13-2012, 09:30 AM

California passed Prop 13, but left that property tax camel's nose squarely in the tent. It did not go far enough, and what a disaster California is, with idiot detractors actually blaming Prop 13 for many of the state's woes, with no mention or criticism of the spend-happy fools in state government who are always the problem, and never the solution.

"Because we need. Because we must."

I think CA should adopt this as their state motto. If you're going to be stupid, be proud and do not hide it. :)

Voluntary Man

03-13-2012, 09:33 AM

I'm a bit soft on secular humanism, since I'm an agnostic/atheist, but if by it you mean anything State supported or mandated then I'm against it too.

I'm a Christian, but I'm vehemently opposed to theocracy. We are all born atheists (in the more agnostic sense, at least). Secular Humanism is the atheist equivalent of theocracy. Your being an atheist doesn't necessitate your sympathy for S.H.(!+) any more than I feel compelled by my faith to feel anything but loathing, dread, and terror for theocrats. All thinking atheists/agnostics should be actively opposed to the atheocracy proposed by Secular HumanIsTs.

Here's their link: www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values

They were once far more open about their atheocratic views. These days, they are much more careful in their language. Still, not much skill/practice in reading between the lines is needed to unmask their doctrine and its political implications.

osan

03-13-2012, 10:38 AM

I'm a Christian, but I'm vehemently opposed to theocracy. We are all born atheists (in the more agnostic sense, at least). Secular Humanism is the atheist equivalent of theocracy. Your being an atheist doesn't necessitate your sympathy for S.H.(!+) any more than I feel compelled by my faith to feel anything but loathing, dread, and terror for theocrats. All thinking atheists/agnostics should be actively opposed to the atheocracy proposed by Secular HumanIsTs.

Here's their link: www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values)

They were once far more open about their atheocratic views. These days, they are much more careful in their language. Still, not much skill/practice in reading between the lines is needed to unmask their doctrine and its political implications.

Well put, sir knight. The element common to both is.... <drumroll>... force.

Voluntary Man

03-13-2012, 11:06 AM

Well put, sir knight. The element common to both is.... <drumroll>... force.

Exactly! Whether it's the force to drive you off of land you've already paid for, or to make you bow to God or Gov, it's the coercion that's the issue.

All social life boils down to the conflict between Coercionism and Voluntarism.

lib3rtarian

03-13-2012, 11:14 AM

This is a great effort. North Dakota is leading the charge to freedom.

Yes, by electing Rick Santorum. Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Travlyr

03-13-2012, 11:27 AM

Yes, by electing Rick Santorum. Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

I was kind of referring to the intent of the thread rather than derailing it.
Help North Dakota ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX
I am a strong believer that allodial title to land promotes freedom.

In fact, Rick Santorum hasn't won anything but the pretty boy contest, yet.

Friday 30 March - Sunday 1 April 2012: The North Dakota State Republican Convention convenes in Bismarck. (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ND-R)

WilliamC

03-13-2012, 11:32 AM

I'm a Christian, but I'm vehemently opposed to theocracy. We are all born atheists (in the more agnostic sense, at least). Secular Humanism is the atheist equivalent of theocracy. Your being an atheist doesn't necessitate your sympathy for S.H.(!+) any more than I feel compelled by my faith to feel anything but loathing, dread, and terror for theocrats. All thinking atheists/agnostics should be actively opposed to the atheocracy proposed by Secular HumanIsTs.

Here's their link: www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values

They were once far more open about their atheocratic views. These days, they are much more careful in their language. Still, not much skill/practice in reading between the lines is needed to unmask their doctrine and its political implications.

That's why I love RPF. I can communicate here with those who are of different faiths than me yet not feel like they want to force me to believe as they.

I'll gladly stand with religious folk who love liberty any day against atheists who want to impose their way through the State.

Freedom brings us together!

Voluntary Man

03-13-2012, 12:13 PM

That's why I love RPF. I can communicate here with those who are of different faiths than me yet not feel like they want to force me to believe as they.

I'll gladly stand with religious folk who love liberty any day against atheists who want to impose their way through the State.

Freedom brings us together!

Amen, brother!;)

Likewise.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 12:24 PM

Amen, brother!;)

Likewise.

Religion, politics and even (or especially) the economy - it's nothing more than an expanded free market principle when you think about. It ALL boils down to the right -- even the beauty -- of safeguarding individual choice, and the rights of individual preference. Nothing collective about it that isn't completely incidental. When Measure 2 passes, maybe I can host an atheist/theist barbecue IN NORTH DAKOTA, and show the unnecessarily polarized idiots of the world how truly free people get along and honestly prosper - by simply respecting one another's individual choices.

erowe1

03-13-2012, 12:35 PM

Does this bill just shift the form of taxation from the property tax to some other kind of tax. If so, I can't see any point.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 12:54 PM

Does this bill just shift the form of taxation from the property tax to some other kind of tax. If so, I can't see any point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfuz9Nvs5xQ

Worst case, a shift really is somewhat of a zero-sum -- to those who count. The biggest difference is that your property is no longer held as ransom to a tax that does not account for individual circumstances or ability to pay. If you spend less, you pay less in sales taxes. If you earn less, you pay less in income taxes. The property tax isn't tied to any of that. It isn't even tied to "value", which is often arbitrarily assessed, but rather mill rates that are based on stated budgetary requirements.

Furthermore, with no property tax, you are free to make improvements to your property without hesitation - which means spending money into the economy. As it is now, you don't just make and pay for improvements and that's that. You go to Home Depot, get a bunch of lumber, nails, sheetrock, paint, etc., and you not only spend money into the economy, you pay sales tax on what you buy. But once it becomes part of your property, it's subject to yet another tax, and you don't OWN your improvements outright. The state does. And you have to consider those costs; the cost of RENTING YOUR OWN IMPROVEMENTS (that you supposedly paid for but don't really own). Once the assessor intrudes into your home and sniffs it out, you're going to pay rent for those improvements -- INDEFINITELY.

So no, it goes way beyond a possible tax shift. What it doesn't account for is the capital flight to North Dakota, as MANY people LOATHE the property tax so badly that they will move, and even move their businesses, to North Dakota once it becomes a haven. That's all increased revenue for North Dakota, which is why the Beacon Hill Institute and the former governor of North Dakota (among others) believes that the property tax can be abolished WITHOUT raising any other taxes.

Seraphim

03-13-2012, 01:30 PM

I see your point, but shifting the burden, for example, from a property tax to a sales tax is a step forward.

Not shifting the burden and cutting govt spending is the best option, of course - 20 steps forward!

Does this bill just shift the form of taxation from the property tax to some other kind of tax. If so, I can't see any point.

erowe1

03-13-2012, 01:33 PM

I see your point, but shifting the burden, for example, from a property tax to a sales tax is a step forward.

I don't see that as a step forward.

Keith and stuff

03-13-2012, 01:34 PM

While I support tax cuts, there are some issues with this proposal. ND already has a general state income tax, a general state sales tax and corporate taxes. Since ND makes substantial money off of corporate taxes compared to most states, my concerns are less of an issues with ND than if most other states tried to do this.

Property taxes tend to be locally controlled and set based on what the locally elected officials or the individuals of a community think spending should be. Most other taxes tend to be controlled by the people at the state capital. Theoretically, people have greater access to and influence of the people that they elect that live in their local community than the people that they elected that have a much, much larger district and spend a great deal of time at the state capital. A law like this would greatly reduce local power and greatly increase state power. It would centralize power by taking it away from the people and the local communities. Since ND is a low populated state, it isn't as bad as for example, all of the states of the Midwest giving most of their funding sources over to Obama, but the effect is similar.

This is generally the opposite of what pro-liberty people want. It would be better to end the ND state income tax or the ND state sales tax and allow local communities to increase property tax rates, create a local income tax, create a local sales tax, cutting spending or some combination of those choices. That is decentralizing power. It's a not positive to most people and allows increased competition between local governments.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 01:46 PM

Property taxes tend to be locally controlled and set based on what the locally elected officials or the individuals of a community think spending should be. Most other taxes tend to be controlled by the people at the state capital.

In North Dakota's case, there really is no local control. The state determines everything - assessment, collection, and conditions placed on virtually all local expenditures anyway. Following is proof, as the State mandates how many mills can/cannot/may/must be assessed and what they can be used for locally, as shown in this document from the State's website:

http://www.nd.gov/tax/property/pubs/levy-limitations.pdf

It's all controlled at the state level. The local governments set out their budgets based on what the state tells them they can (or must) charge for. The local governments are virtual puppets of the state legislature in this regard. The local governments aren't controlling the taxes - they're given their marching orders --- as agents for the state that is doing it.

If your city has an emergency (natural disaster like flood, tornado, blizzard) and it costs more than the 2.5 mills than the state allows, or wants a library that costs more than the 4 mills the state allows, then too bad. The only way they can raise that money is through other taxes - not property taxes.

As Bob Hale says, "The only thing local about property taxes is the property."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1SgqOzKRU4

A recent legislature decision dictated that 70% of all new K-12 school funding HAD to be spent on teachers. That's the state dictating to the local governments how their funds are to be spent -- and that was from the direct lobbying efforts of the NEA (teacher's union), which is fighting Measure 2 ($10,000 from the state NDEA, $35,000 from the national NEA - so far), precisely because it REMOVES state control from the spending side and gives local governments SOLE DISCRETION. Bad for the NEA, which wants the spending control to remain centralized with the state, something Measure 2 also abolishes. This is because Measure 2 explicitly prohibits the state from placing ANY conditions on local expenditures - that the local governments have absolute 100% control over HOW their money is spent. Something they do not have now, and never had in the past.

Keith and stuff

03-13-2012, 02:09 PM

Thanks.

I didn't realized the system was so completely messed up and backwards in ND. It that is the case, then abolishing property taxes in ND seems a lot more appealing to me.

Seraphim

03-13-2012, 02:32 PM

Why not?

No property tax is a huge step towards property rights and liberty. I didn't say I support transfering the tax onus...just that a property tax is less damaging to libtery than a sales/consuption tax.

At least with no property tax people can actually own their homes...

None the less, I'm for getting rid of all taxes :).

I don't see that as a step forward.

Steven Douglas

03-13-2012, 02:41 PM

Thanks.

I didn't realized the system was so completely messed up and backwards in ND. It that is the case, then abolishing property taxes in ND seems a lot more appealing to me.

You had a valid concern - and it's something that both the NEA and the ND Chamber (both of whom have a lot of power to lose) are playing on deceptively big time.

The NEA is obviously pandering to the centralized trough from which they slop, but so is their supposedly polar-opposite (politically) counterpart, the ND Chamber of Commerce. They hit it from the other side, because unlike the US Chamber of Commerce, the ND Chamber makes no bones about subsidies, abatements, favors, economic development zones, and how to profit from all of it. Theirs is a good cop bad cop routine, as they pretend to rail against taxes, but officially support them. They're influence peddlers of the lowest kind.

The North Dakota Chamber of Commerce is more than just a major lobbying group. It is very much about government/business crony alliances, and serves as a conduit, a liasson for favoritism and promoter of pork legislation (welfare for favored darling businesses), including acting as an agent for assisting favored businesses to obtain get tax credits and special exemptions, among which are the Property Tax.

With the passage of Measure 2, North Dakota becomes one big economic incentive center, for businesses and individuals, who will not need the "lobbying assistance" of of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce in that arena, as the exemptions they now fight to get, and only for their favored paid-up darlings will be available to everyone. Hence the ND Chamber will not have that particular indulgence to peddle.

Want to see some contrast? Take a look at this - the difference between the policies of the US Chamber of Commerce and the ND Chamber. Like night and day:

Direct excerpts:

US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POSITION (on tax reform, click the link) (http://www.uschamber.com/issues/econtax/tax-reform)

Tax reform legislation should:

Ensure industry-specific neutrality and
Avoid special tax benefits or penalties targeted to one industry versus another.
Tax reform should allow the marketplace, not the tax system, to allocate capital and resources.

Pretty simple. How does the North Dakota Chamber align? They went rogue.

NORTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POSITION (click the link) (http://www.ndchamber.com/legislative/policiesView.asp?ID=11)

Support state policies which:

Encourage growth of the state's targeted industries
...strategies which create easier access to credit for foreign companies
Support tax credits and other incentives
...easier access to private equity and angel funds, as well as expansion of state tax credits and incentives
for the creation of new and expanded funds.
Benchmark current state and federal spending pools
Support efforts to enhance the state's image and
enhance the marketing of state services and resources for businesses.
Support programs to address housing needs and infrastructure improvements

Sound like a free market to you? It's a mess, and the two that are screaming the loudest (NEA and ND Chamber) are the ones with all the bacon in the freezer and chocolate on their ridiculous faces.

GeorgiaAvenger

03-13-2012, 05:10 PM

Good deal!

Steven Douglas

03-17-2012, 12:43 PM

New video out by Empower The Taxpayer at YesM2.com

Former North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer (WELL loved and revered in North Dakota overall) is not a Measure 2 proponent. His only reservation and reason for withholding his endorsement comes from the fact that Measure 2 vests more power in the state legislature on the funding side (a power the state already pretty much holds and exercises anyway). Measure 2 explicitly prohibits the legislature from placing conditions on funding - thus, on the spending side, the control would be completely local.

Despite his opposition to the measure, Gov. Schafer is not 100% opposed to it, and is well known for being truthful and forthright. He does not play fast and loose with facts for political gain, and everyone in North Dakota knows it.

Measure 2 detractors are engaging in scare tactics - there won't be money for local funding, senior services will be cut, M2 will result in a tax shift, expect your sales and income taxes to go up, etc., Ed Schafer dealt a serious blow to those engaging in scare tactics at a panel debate hosted by the Chamber of Commerce a couple of days ago.

Have a watch, this is brilliant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc2fIxoL-Z4

2young2vote

03-17-2012, 01:17 PM

Steven Douglas

03-17-2012, 01:26 PM

The property tax seems like it would be one of the easiest taxes to be rid of due to it being state and local. I support this, however:

don't pay property taxes and you will get your house taken away,

don't pay income taxes and you will get your life taken away.

Is there really any difference?

Well, at least with income tax, no income equals no tax. With the property tax just having something of value equals perpetual rent to the state, and improvements are basically donations to the state who will rent it back to you. If I had to pick one over the other the property tax would get the ax before any of the rest.

But that doesn't mean I don't hate the income tax. I'm against both for different reasons. One at a time - one down, one to go!

Roy L

03-17-2012, 02:14 PM

I am a strong believer that allodial title to land promotes freedom.
Unfortunately, your belief is objectively false. In Hong Kong, there is no private land ownership at all, and it routinely tops lists of the world's freest countries. By contrast, poverty-stricken, tyrannical pestholes like Pakistan, Guatemala and Bangladesh have the system you want: private landowning with no property tax.

The freest state in the union -- by far -- NH, also gets the largest fraction -- by far -- of state and local revenue from property taxes.

You need to take a couple of months off work to figure out why you favor poverty, tyranny and oppression over prosperity, freedom and progress.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 02:46 PM

Unfortunately, your belief is objectively false. In Hong Kong, there is no private land ownership at all, and it routinely tops lists of the world's freest countries.
By who? The Southern Poverty Law Center? Government owned property promotes freedom... yeah.. right... isn't that what Karl Marx claimed? Sheesh.

By contrast, poverty-stricken, tyrannical pestholes like Pakistan, Guatemala and Bangladesh have the system you want: private landowning with no property tax.
What the hell you talking about Jackson?

Pakistan Tax Rates (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/pakistan-tax-rates.html)
Real property tax – A 6% tax is imposed on the value of real property.

The freest state in the union -- by far -- NH, also gets the largest fraction -- by far -- of state and local revenue from property taxes.
How does a high tax rate promote freedom?

You need to take a couple of months off work to figure out why you favor poverty, tyranny and oppression over prosperity, freedom and progress.
I'm retired. And in that pea brain of yours somehow you believe that more taxes means less poverty? Wtf are you talking about Jackson?

furface

03-17-2012, 02:48 PM

In Hong Kong, there is no private land ownership at all, and it routinely tops lists of the world's freest countries.

It's much more complex than this. There's a presumption that as lease terms come close to expiring they will be renewed. The main difference is likely more fuzzy Asian views of government versus strict legalistic Western views of government. As leases have become due in the past they have been renewed with something similar to property taxes as rent.

Hong Kong is a very special place with very special geography and orientation. You want to own land there, the government can be expected to extract a little more from property owners for the benefit they receive for being there. I'm guessing the taxes all told are similar to similar places like London & New York. I've never heard of any property owner being evicted by the Hong Kong or Chinese government, but I'm not an expert on it. I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

Hong Kong real estate is a lot different than US State governments going after people and their 3 bd shacks so that government can pay $90k per year pensions to 50 year old retired government bureaucrats. You get something in return in Hong Kong.

eduardo89

03-17-2012, 02:50 PM

Unfortunately, your belief is objectively false. In Hong Kong, there is no private land ownership at all, and it routinely tops lists of the world's freest countries. By contrast, poverty-stricken, tyrannical pestholes like Pakistan, Guatemala and Bangladesh have the system you want: private landowning with no property tax.

The freest state in the union -- by far -- NH, also gets the largest fraction -- by far -- of state and local revenue from property taxes.

You need to take a couple of months off work to figure out why you favor poverty, tyranny and oppression over prosperity, freedom and progress.

That's not true Roy. St. John's Cathdral's land is freehold.

kah13176

03-17-2012, 02:58 PM

Roy L

03-17-2012, 03:12 PM

California passed Prop 13, but left that property tax camel's nose squarely in the tent.
Garbage. Property tax revenue as a fraction of total state and local revenue in CA has continued to decline since Prop 13 was implemented, until today CA gets a smaller fraction of government revenue from property taxes than any state but LA. Your claims are objectively false, idiotic and dishonest.

It did not go far enough, and what a disaster California is, with idiot detractors actually blaming Prop 13 for many of the state's woes,
The idiots are those who refuse to see what is blatantly obvious. The disastrous trends in CA all began with the passage of Prop 13, and I have explained to you why that effect was predictable and inevitable. It WAS predicted by geoist economists like Mason Gaffney, and they have been proved right, in spades. As usual. Warren Buffett, who understands all aspects of economics infinitely better than you, has stated that Prop 13 has been a disaster for CA. When he mentioned this fact to Governor Schwarzenegger, and recommended repealing Prop 13 as the only way to address CA's numerous crises, the Governator says he told Buffett to do 500 push-ups.

with no mention or criticism of the spend-happy fools in state government who are always the problem, and never the solution.
You know that all such claims are false, stupid and dishonest, Steven. In fact, CA has the TENTH LOWEST state spending as a fraction of state GDP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2012pF0s

Even if you add in local spending, CA is only 16th, and far below such conservative utopias as MS, NM, SC, WV and MT.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2012pF0c

Every time you try to rationalize and justify greed, privilege and injustice, you have to tell stupid lies.

North Dakota is the ONE state now poised to pave the way for the rest - a single haven from perpetual rent payments - where property actually can be owned once it is paid for, without government holding ultimate title your land, your property, and the rent you must pay on any improvements you make.
So ND can go beyond CA, and become like Pakistan, Guatemala, the Philippines, Bangladesh, etc. What joy.

The property tax is the most hated tax of all, and for very good reasons,
Right: the relentless, well-financed campaigns of anti-property-tax hate propaganda, which fools have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

as it is also the most unfair and abused tax of all,
You know I have proved to you that it is fairer than other taxes, as it recovers government-created land value to pay for government spending.

and the only tax that doesn't take into account one's ability to pay.
Another stupid lie from you. Any tax that is based on asset value inherently takes ability to pay into account, as assets are by definition what CONFER ability to pay. The property tax therefore, BY DEFINITION, takes ability to pay into account more than any other commonly levied tax.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 03:21 PM

Three choices.

Nobody owns the land & resources contained therein.
Government owns the land and resources contained therein.
Individuals own the land and the resources therein.

Which option delivers the most freedom, and prosperity, for individuals?

Roy L

03-17-2012, 03:22 PM

That's not true Roy. St. John's Cathdral's land is freehold.
Even if you consider the established church of England a "private landowner," it is obviously only pro forma ownership, and does not affect the fact that private landowning is not permitted in HK, and is therefore not related to freedom.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 03:24 PM

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 03:34 PM

That depends on the kind of government in the second option.
A really kind government. A government of benevolence.

furface

03-17-2012, 03:41 PM

Which option delivers the most freedom, and prosperity, for individuals?

I think as with all things concerning natural resources it's a very complex issue. There's no place on Earth where private property is truly private. It's always a mixture of various rights and privileges enforced by government and entirely revokable by government. I don't know of any country that doesn't have some form of eminent domain for instance. Nor do I know of any country that doesn't have some sort of environmental and land use laws that override private property rights.

I agree with Roy that land has a community commons aspect to it. However, I don't agree that it needs to be taxed or owned by the government in all cases. Some land is different than others and some owners are different than others. An individual homeowner owning a single family residence or a small businessperson owning a private shop is different than Walmart owning millions of acres of commercial property.

I think there's a tendency for political theorists to be monolithic and overly simplistic in their views of government, especially at the state level. To me I think the federal government should be somewhat simple as set forth by the Constitution, however US States should have much more leeway about how they want to do things, i.e. State Rights.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 03:42 PM

I think as with all things concerning natural resources it's a very complex issue. There's no place on Earth where private property is truly private. It's always a mixture of various rights and privileges enforced by government and entirely revokable by government. I don't know of any country that doesn't have some form of eminent domain for instance. Nor do I know of any country that doesn't have some sort of environmental and land use laws that override private property rights.

I agree with Roy that land has a community commons aspect to it. However, I don't agree that it needs to be taxed or owned by the government in all cases. Some land is different than others and some owners are different than others. An individual homeowner owning a single family residence or a small businessperson owning a private shop is different than Walmart owning millions of acres of commercial property.

I think there's a tendency for political theorists to be monolithic and overly simplistic in their views of government, especially at the state level. To me I think the federal government should be somewhat simple as set forth by the Constitution, however US States should have much more leeway about how they want to do things, i.e. State Rights.
So what say you? 1, 2, or 3?

Roy L

03-17-2012, 03:46 PM

By who? The Southern Poverty Law Center?
The Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Government owned property promotes freedom... yeah.. right... isn't that what Karl Marx claimed? Sheesh.
You share Marx's error: not distinguishing what is rightfully property from what is not.

What the hell you talking about Jackson?

Pakistan Tax Rates (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/pakistan-tax-rates.html)
Real property tax – A 6% tax is imposed on the value of real property.
No, it isn't:

"To carry this comparison further, property taxes represent an average of 1.42 % of
GDP in industrialized countries, 0.42% in twenty developing countries, and 0.54% in
transitional countries; yet, they account for a fairly insignificant share of GDP, estimated at
0.09%, in the Punjab [a province of Pakistan] (Paugam 1999, Bahl 2005, Kaiser 2005)."

While there is notionally a property tax in Pakistan, it effectively raises no revenue.

How does a high tax rate promote freedom?
By recovering publicly created value for public purposes and benefit rather than giving it away and confiscating privately created value instead.

I'm retired. And in that pea brain of yours somehow you believe that more taxes means less poverty?
See the actual numbers, above.

Wtf are you talking about Jackson?
Facts you refuse to know, because you have realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 03:46 PM

A really kind government. A government of benevolence.
Then Door #2, no doubt of it.

furface

03-17-2012, 03:49 PM

So what say you? 1, 2, or 3?

If I had to chose only one, I would say "3. Individuals own the land and the resources therein."

It's a gross over simplification, though. I believe that all individuals have a natural right to access to the resources they need to produce necessary goods like food, housing, transportation & medical care. So in my view there is private ownership, but the State would have the authority to use monetary policy to make sure everybody has the ability to work to produce goods necessary to survive. It's related to resource ownership in the sense that people should have access to resources or in lue of resources money.

In terms of taxes, I think for most individuals a property tax is unjust, but for really wealthy people it's legitimate. I also think that labor taxes (income tax) are a form of slavery, but resource usage taxes, like for burning fossil fuels, are legitimate. Also in terms of taxes, I think that taxes on gross monetary holdings as opposed to income taxes, are more just. It's unfair to tax a really poor person who makes 50k in one year while billionaires potentially pay zero taxes.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 03:52 PM

If I had to chose only one, I would say "3. Individuals own the land and the resources therein."

It's a gross over simplification, though. I believe that all individuals have a natural right to access to the resources they need to produce necessary goods like food, housing, transportation & medical care. So in my view there is private ownership, but the State would have the authority to use monetary policy to make sure everybody has the ability to work to product goods necessary to survive. It's related to resource ownership in the sense that people should have access to resources or in lue of resources money.
The State having the authority to use monetary policy limits the ability of individuals to produce goods ... it does not enhance it. The State becomes the regulatory agency taking valuable profits off the top of production.

eduardo89

03-17-2012, 03:57 PM

A really kind government. A government of benevolence.

The government of LVT Fantasyland.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 03:57 PM

Then Door #2, no doubt of it.
If I was in government, and I was benevolent, yet in charge, then I would make sure my family and friends enjoyed the best of things while leaving the crumbs for those I do not know or care about. I would not try and starve others, but if they starved, then what of it? Government privilege has its privileges.

furface

03-17-2012, 03:59 PM

it does not enhance it. They become the regulatory agency taking valuable profits off the top.

You're talking in abstractions. Give me an example. Here's an example of monetary policy. You give individuals zero interest loans to purchase houses. You bypass the banks and you help stop the viscous cycle of mortgage debt slavery.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 03:59 PM

It's much more complex than this. There's a presumption that as lease terms come close to expiring they will be renewed.
Of course: the terms are so generous, a leaseholder would be a fool not to renew.

As leases have become due in the past they have been renewed with something similar to property taxes as rent.
And...?

Hong Kong is a very special place with very special geography and orientation. You want to own land there, the government can be expected to extract a little more from property owners for the benefit they receive for being there.
You can't own land there, and there are benefits to holding land anywhere government and the community have made its use more economically advantageous.

I'm guessing the taxes all told are similar to similar places like London & New York.
The lease + property taxes are much higher in HK than property taxes on places of similar value in London or NY.

I've never heard of any property owner being evicted by the Hong Kong or Chinese government, but I'm not an expert on it.
It has happened.

Hong Kong real estate is a lot different than US State governments going after people and their 3 bd shacks so that government can pay $90k per year pensions to 50 year old retired government bureaucrats.
I see a lot of claims about that sort of thing, but not a lot of documentation.

You get something in return in Hong Kong.
You get something in return anywhere government spending on services and infrastructure makes use of the land more advantageous.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 04:00 PM

If I was in government, and I was benevolent, yet in charge, then I would make sure my family and friends enjoyed the best of things while leaving the crumbs for those I do not know or care about. I would not try and starve others, but if they starved, then what of it? Government privilege has its privileges.
You contradict yourself.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 04:01 PM

You're talking in abstractions. Give me an example. Here's an example of monetary policy. You give individuals zero interest loans to purchase houses. You bypass the banks and you help stop the viscous cycle of mortgage debt slavery.
Then house prices will simply rise to infinity. Why not? At zero interest, you just pay less on the loan than the market rent, and make a profit.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 04:02 PM

You're talking in abstractions. Give me an example. Here's an example of monetary policy. You give individuals zero interest loans to purchase houses. You bypass the banks and you help stop the viscous cycle of mortgage debt slavery.
If you are really kind and generous, then why not just give them the money rather than loaning it at zero interest.

furface

03-17-2012, 04:03 PM

Then house prices will simply rise to infinity.

This is not the case in places where governments have done this. It used to be common in Middle Eastern countries that forbid paying interest.

Travlyr

03-17-2012, 04:04 PM

You contradict yourself.
I can claim benevolence while letting others starve. War is Peace, Tyranny is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, Fake is Real, CNN tells the truth.

furface

03-17-2012, 04:05 PM

why not just give them the money rather than loaning it at zero interest.

I would do it if you could get away with it without triggering hyper inflation. It's much better to put money into the hands of people than into the hands of State bureaucrats who will use it to the detriment of the private sector and individual rights.

Zippyjuan

03-17-2012, 04:05 PM

Roy L

03-17-2012, 04:20 PM

This is not the case in places where governments have done this. It used to be common in Middle Eastern countries that forbid paying interest.
Let's see the evidence.

furface

03-17-2012, 06:12 PM

Let's see the evidence.

Actually, you need to provide evidence that "prices would go to infinity," because there is absolutely no evidence that that has ever happened with zero interest rate loans. Also, do yourself a favor and do a bit of research on the current ratio of rent to mortgage payments before making claims that lower mortgage than rental prices would lead to infinite housing prices.

But search around the internet for no interest or zero interest loans and you'll see situations where they come up. I'm not going to do the searches for you because honestly I don't want to encourage you to troll up facts and figures.

Zero interest rate loans are commonly used in charity work among groups like Habitat for Humanity. Countries will also periodically cut their key interest rates to zero. For instance:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-6928595.html

I know from personal experience that Iraq & Saudi Arabia have had such policies in the past and still might be implementing them to some degree.

Islamic banking also equitizes interest payments. The most prices would ever go up is to take account the deduction in interest payments.

"Time value of money," the theoretical basis for interest, is a banker's trick to make profits on pure money without doing anything productive. Money should actually decrease in value over time, not increase. Why should it increase? It should take effort to maintain surpluses, people shouldn't pay you for it. Why should you get paid to hoard money? It doesn't make sense from any point of view except bankers, Wall Street, & big government.

Zippyjuan

03-17-2012, 06:23 PM

Islamic banking also equitizes interest payments.

True. While charging interest in Islamic banking is technically not allowed, fees are added to any loans which could be calculated out as interest rates- they get added on to what you owe. They will purchase the property for you and keep the title in their name until you pay back the loan plus the fees (interrest).

"Time value of money," the theoretical basis for interest, is a banker's trick to make profits on pure money without doing anything productive. Money should actually decrease in value over time, not increase. Why should it increase? It should take effort to maintain surpluses, people shouldn't pay you for it. Why should you get paid to hoard money? It doesn't make sense from any point of view except bankers, Wall Street, & big government.

Why should the value of money go down over time? Say I have $100 I don't need today. You say "let me use it". So what will you give me for it? If the price of the money will go down in the future, would I be willing to get back $80 for the $100 I gave you (would you accept that deal? If so- perhaps we can talk. Got a couple thousand I can borrow?)? I am trading using that money today for using that money tomorrow. If I get back less tomorrow why won't I just keep my money and be better off? If you want to borrow my money, I am going to need to get something in exchange for it.

The bank also has costs- its physical property and the people and equipment to staff it. If they cannot make a profit, they will not exist so if you do want to borrow money you will have to seek out friends and family.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 09:46 PM

I can claim benevolence while letting others starve. War is Peace, Tyranny is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, Fake is Real, CNN tells the truth.
You can claim whatever you like. That doesn't make it meaningful.

Roy L

03-17-2012, 10:14 PM

Actually, you need to provide evidence that "prices would go to infinity," because there is absolutely no evidence that that has ever happened with zero interest rate loans.
It can't actually happen: reality steps in and stops it. The Net Present Value Equation implies that if the sum of the interest rate and tax rate is not greater than the rent growth rate, land value will diverge (i.e., become infinite). This was on its way to happening in Japan in the 1980s, but reality won't accept infinite land prices so the economy stopped growing and started contracting. At the peak of the Japanese land bubble, all the land in Japan was estimated to be worth four times as much as all the land in the USA. Land was so overvalued that economic calculation became little better than guesswork.

Also, do yourself a favor and do a bit of research on the current ratio of rent to mortgage payments before making claims that lower mortgage than rental prices would lead to infinite housing prices.
Current = temporary. The current cheap money policy is precisely a scheme to stop land values from declining further. If it were widely believed that this policy was permanent, you can bet land values would be flying again, and rents would be lower than mortgage payments.

But search around the internet for no interest or zero interest loans and you'll see situations where they come up.
I see no zero interest loans for land purchases.

I'm not going to do the searches for you because honestly I don't want to encourage you to troll up facts and figures.
IOW, you can't support your claim. Thought not.

Zero interest rate loans are commonly used in charity work among groups like Habitat for Humanity.
But they are not generally available, and are for IMPROVEMENTS, not LAND ACQUISITION. Two different things. The sum of future benefits from improvements is finite, as they eventually depreciate to zero and are demolished. Land is effectively eternal, and the sum of future benefits from land just keeps increasing.

Countries will also periodically cut their key interest rates to zero. For instance:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-6928595.html
"Key interest rates" != typical mortgage rates.

I know from personal experience that Iraq & Saudi Arabia have had such policies in the past and still might be implementing them to some degree.
I'm waiting for your evidence.

Islamic banking also equitizes interest payments. The most prices would ever go up is to take account the deduction in interest payments.
Just look at the Net Present Value Equation. If the lender is taking out equity payments, that's equivalent to interest.

"Time value of money," the theoretical basis for interest, is a banker's trick to make profits on pure money without doing anything productive.
Providing purchasing power to underwrite productive capital investment is productive. But you are right about bankers under the current debt money system: they create money, effectively robbing all who own money of their purchasing power, while doing nothing productive -- indeed, while destroying the economy.

Money should actually decrease in value over time, not increase. Why should it increase?
Because it can be used for productive capital investment that increases wealth production.

It should take effort to maintain surpluses, people shouldn't pay you for it. Why should you get paid to hoard money? It doesn't make sense from any point of view except bankers, Wall Street, & big government.
Devoting your purchasing power to productive capital investment (which is admittedly different from what Wall Street and bankers do) is not hoarding.

Steven Douglas

03-18-2012, 04:22 AM

What a shame. A perfectly good thread thoroughly polluted by crackpot geosocialist religious tenets.

furface

03-18-2012, 09:36 AM

What a shame. A perfectly good thread thoroughly polluted by crackpot geosocialist religious tenets.

I agree. For the vast majority of people there shouldn't be property taxes. If money is a problem for people, one of the ways to put money into the hands of ordinary people is to let them keep it by not taking it in the form of property taxes. Governments love to steal money from you and claim to be doing you a favor by offering you "services" in return. Why not just let you keep it?

A more legitimate discussion, rather than the jerk off debate about "LV" theory, is how do you fund "services" that governments purportedly offer like schools, police, fire, roads, etc.

Here's how I would do it.

1. Fire department, either volunteer or an extension of insurance or both.

2. Police department. Volunteer definitely. Society would do so much better with volunteer police departments. The minimal amount of money needed to fund courts and jails could come from other sources like excise and use taxes.

3. Roads - gas tax.

4. Schools - sorry, the minute the internet came into being, the need for public education dropped down to zero. The cost for education should be about $100 per student per year, not $10,000 per year like it is in California where unions are screaming bloody murder about cost cuts.

Roy L

03-18-2012, 01:56 PM

What a shame. A perfectly good thread thoroughly polluted by crackpot geosocialist religious tenets.
Calling recovery of publicly created value for public purposes and benefit rather than giving it away to greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowners in return for nothing "socialist" is just a lie. It is indisputable justice. And it would be your blank refusal to know indisputable facts of objective physical reality that constitutes religious dogmatism.

roho76

03-18-2012, 02:31 PM

Roy L

03-18-2012, 02:36 PM

For the vast majority of people there shouldn't be property taxes.
Then you favor forcibly removing people's rights to liberty without just compensation, and then stealing value they produce in order to give welfare subsidy giveaways to the privileged in return for nothing. Check.

If money is a problem for people, one of the ways to put money into the hands of ordinary people is to let them keep it by not taking it in the form of property taxes.
ROTFL!! How is that workin' for ya in CA since Prop 13, hmmmm? Reducing the land value portion of property taxes just increases the prices people have to pay for land by an equivalent amount -- and even more, because of speculation. Do ordinary Californians have more money now than in 1978? They do not. They are in permanent debt slavery for their mortgages, and must pay higher income tax, sales tax, etc. to finance the increased welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners. It is the railroads and oil companies who have pocketed astronomical profits on their vast landholdings as a result of Prop 13, not ordinary people. Ordinary people are losing their homes and life savings by the thousands in CA.

Your claims are the exact, diametric opposite of the truth, because you refuse to know facts of economics.

Governments love to steal money from you and claim to be doing you a favor by offering you "services" in return. Why not just let you keep it?
Because that is Somalia, where pirates take it instead.

You can't be a significant landowner, or you would be aware that government services shovel money INTO your pockets.

A more legitimate discussion, rather than the jerk off debate about "LV" theory, is how do you fund "services" that governments purportedly offer like schools, police, fire, roads, etc.
That's easy: by requiring those who get the benefit of them to pay for them.

Here's how I would do it.

1. Fire department, either volunteer or an extension of insurance or both.
Talk about false economy.

2. Police department. Volunteer definitely. Society would do so much better with volunteer police departments. The minimal amount of money needed to fund courts and jails could come from other sources like excise and use taxes.
So you want those who like to use force so much they'll do it for free to be your police officers? Are you stupid?

3. Roads - gas tax.
That only guarantees roads will be under-built and under-used, stifling economic growth, to the immense unearned profit of landowners.

4. Schools - sorry, the minute the internet came into being, the need for public education dropped down to zero. The cost for education should be about $100 per student per year, not $10,000 per year like it is in California where unions are screaming bloody murder about cost cuts.
I'm no fan of the educational system or teachers' unions, but the Internet can't give you individual attention. It's also not much use if you can't read.

Roy L

03-18-2012, 02:49 PM

I have mixed feeling about property tax. I think homesteads and legitimate business property (but then again who determines what is legitimate) should definitely be property tax free so no one can ever take your home because you didn't pay $1,000 to the government
Do you think a PRIVATE landlord should be able to "take your home" because you didn't pay $1000 rent? In many places people own their homes but not the land under them, which is leased. Should the landowner not be able to remove them from the land if they don't pay the lease? And as it is government and the community that are CREATING the value of the land, and not the private landowner, why would it be more legitimate for the landowner to have the power to remove people for non-payment than for government to have it?

but I would fear JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs would buy up the entire country if there was no property tax at all.
Right: the lower the property tax rate, the greater the concentration of landownership, as we have seen in CA since Prop 13 -- the greatest public policy blunder committed by any state since the Civil War.

Hell all of these foreclosures would come off the market and be held by the big banks. Now we would end up renting from every big bank in the country. This seems in line with the overall goal of our government socialists who would love nothing more than to deprive the citizens of private land ownership.
Ask any socialist: they want to deprive you of capital ownership much more than land ownership.

What would stop banks from calling all mortgages and then holding all property?
Nothing. Which is why there is a law against banks retaining foreclosed properties.

Please someone convince me otherwise. I really want to believe there is an alternative but my mind can't come up with anything.
There is no alternative. Read the What Do You Think of LVT thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?315104-What-do-you-think-of-Land-Value-Tax-%28LVT%29

roho76

03-18-2012, 08:12 PM

Do you think a PRIVATE landlord should be able to "take your home" because you didn't pay $1000 rent? In many places people own their homes but not the land under them, which is leased. Should the landowner not be able to remove them from the land if they don't pay the lease? And as it is government and the community that are CREATING the value of the land, and not the private landowner, why would it be more legitimate for the landowner to have the power to remove people for non-payment than for government to have it?

WTF? That has nothing to do with what I asked. And the rest of your post is incoherent babble. The only thing that I can take from that is the part about laws against the banks holding foreclosures but I think your wrong on that. From what my real estate agent told me is there is very little on the market because banks are sitting on them.

So what is the solution, please.

rockerrockstar

03-18-2012, 09:37 PM

I think at minimum senior citizens should not have to pay property taxes on their home. That way they can retire and not worry about increasing property taxes from inflation.

I like the idea of not having to pay property taxes. Lets see the math behind the idea. What will be the outcome if they get rid of the property taxes. What currently is that property tax money spent on?

I don't live in North Dakota but just curious.

Roy L

03-18-2012, 11:57 PM

WTF? That has nothing to do with what I asked.
It most certainly does. You said government should not be able to "take your home" if you don't pay for what government gives you, and of which you forcibly deprive others. But you probably don't think people should be able to take stuff from the grocery store without paying for it, and seem to think a private landowner is perfectly justified in taking people's homes if they don't pay that private landowner for what GOVERNMENT and the community give them.

And the rest of your post is incoherent babble.
That's a flat-out lie, and you know it. That's one thing you'll have to learn if you want to discuss these issues with me: I won't let you get away with lying. My post is very clear, very coherent, and very logical. You just have to refuse to understand it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false, indefensible, and evil.

The only thing that I can take from that is the part about laws against the banks holding foreclosures but I think your wrong on that. From what my real estate agent told me is there is very little on the market because banks are sitting on them.
Maybe that was part of Glass-Steagal, or some other law they have changed since the 90s, but I'm quite sure US banks were at least in the fairly recent past prohibited from accumulating foreclosed properties.

So what is the solution, please.
I've told you: require those who pocket all the benefit of government spending on services and infrastructure -- landowners -- to pay for it. But first, stop swallowing all the idiotic anti-property-tax hate propaganda the privileged pay their liars for hire to churn out and constantly jam into your face.

Roy L

03-19-2012, 12:03 AM

I think at minimum senior citizens should not have to pay property taxes on their home.
Do you also think senior citizens should not have to pay for the stuff they take home from the grocery store?

That way they can retire and not worry about increasing property taxes from inflation.
They don't have to worry anyway: if their property value increases to the point where the taxes become onerous, they can just sell the property for a tidy profit, and seek accommodation better suited to their needs and means.

I like the idea of not having to pay property taxes.
So? Everyone likes the idea of getting something for nothing. You just happen to think it is the rich and greedy who should get something for nothing, not the poor and needy. This is called, "red state Christianity."

What will be the outcome if they get rid of the property taxes.
A disaster like CA since Prop 13, only worse.

What currently is that property tax money spent on?
Services and infrastructure that increase land value, and benefit no one but landowners.

Steven Douglas

03-19-2012, 07:28 AM

My response is going to shock a lot of people here and believe me when I say it kills me too. So someone please set me straight.

I have mixed feeling about property tax. I think homesteads and legitimate business property (but then again who determines what is legitimate) should definitely be property tax free so no one can ever take your home because you didn't pay $1,000 to the government but I would fear JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs would buy up the entire country if there was no property tax at all. Hell all of these foreclosures would come off the market and be held by the big banks. Now we would end up renting from every big bank in the country. This seems in line with the overall goal of our government socialists who would love nothing more than to deprive the citizens of private land ownership. What would stop banks from calling all mortgages and then holding all property?

Please someone convince me otherwise. I really want to believe there is an alternative but my mind can't come up with anything.

That's the only problem I have with it, but for me that strikes at the heart of conditionally privileged entities versus individuals with unalienable rights.

For example, I have no problem whatsoever with an outright prohibition on foreign, collective, or fictitious "person" landownership in our country. Real and natural persons only, as a matter of right, not privilege. The rest as a matter of privilege and not right. I also don't have a problem with reasonable limits set on individual landownership, including "absentee" ownership. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to have the ability to buy an entire city, or even state for that matter. But that's easily handled - the moment you charge rent for use of land, your land is subject to laws governing privileges, and not rights.

furface

03-19-2012, 09:44 AM

For example, I have no problem whatsoever with an outright prohibition on foreign, collective, or fictitious "person" landownership in our country. Real and natural persons only, as a matter of right, not privilege. The rest as a matter of privilege and not right. I also don't have a problem with reasonable limits set on individual landownership, including "absentee" ownership. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to have the ability to buy an entire city, or even state for that matter. But that's easily handled - the moment you charge rent for use of land, your land is subject to laws governing privileges, and not rights.

I agree with this.

There other problem I have with property taxes on individual homes, small farms, and small businesses is that government tends to be this perverse variation on Robin Hood. It steals from the poor and middle classes and gives back an authoritarian bundle of "goods" to the poor and middle classes. It takes things people want and gives them back things they don't want. It's much better to let people keep things like property taxes and decide how to spend the money themselves.

There may be some benefit government offers for property taxes, but my view is that it's a net negative, especially for things that property taxes normally pay for. Schools are ineffective and grossly over funded. Public safety unions have upped the cost for police and fire protection by about 1000%. Government departments are also predatory on society. They bust people for things like drug use, petty traffic violations, and petty government code violations.

Roy L

03-19-2012, 03:02 PM

[Government] steals from the poor and middle classes and gives back an authoritarian bundle of "goods" to the poor and middle classes.
No, it steals from the poor and the productive by taxation, and then makes them pay rich, greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowners for access to the desirable services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for.

It takes things people want and gives them back things they don't want.
Wrong. People DO want the services and infrastructure government spending provides, and land value is the exact measure of how MUCH they want them: it is the full market value of access to them.

It's much better to let people keep things like property taxes and decide how to spend the money themselves.
Nope. Flat wrong. The private market can't invest efficient amounts in public goods. That's why Somalia is worse than all but the very worst places that have governments and taxes. Stupid, evil, lying sacks of $#!+ just claim that all governments are the same as the worst governments. They are lying when they claim that.

There may be some benefit government offers for property taxes, but my view is that it's a net negative, especially for things that property taxes normally pay for.
The very existence of land value proves you are wrong, as explained above.

Schools are ineffective and grossly over funded.
In the USA that is sometimes true, but proximity to good public schools is still a reliable predictor of residential land value.

Public safety unions have upped the cost for police and fire protection by about 1000%.
While I am no fan of public sector unions, IMO these claims are exaggerated. A handful of overpaid banksters cost us far more than thousands of overpaid public sector workers.

Government departments are also predatory on society. They bust people for things like drug use, petty traffic violations, and petty government code violations.
“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” -- Jonathan Swift

furface

03-19-2012, 03:37 PM

helmuth_hubener

03-19-2012, 04:04 PM

Thank you, Steven, for promoting this. That would be very exciting were the measure to pass. Here's hoping!

Roy L

03-19-2012, 06:52 PM

Roy, that's the beauty of State Rights in our Constitution. If you can convince enough people in any single state to drop every single tax except for property taxes, you should be able to get your LVT.

In the mean time I personally will work towards eliminating property taxes for most people and entities and income taxes for most people.
OK, so, as I presumed would be the case, you do not care that your beliefs have been proved factually false and morally evil. No problem. There's lots worse things a guy can do than rationalize, justify and promote the greatest evil in the history of the world. If I tried, I might even be able to think of one.

The Gold Standard

03-19-2012, 08:35 PM

I would fear JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs would buy up the entire country if there was no property tax at all.

Do you think property taxes are stopping them from doing this now? They literally have access to an unlimited amount of money. I don't think property taxes are a big concern for them.

The Gold Standard

03-19-2012, 08:47 PM

That's the only problem I have with it, but for me that strikes at the heart of conditionally privileged entities versus individuals with unalienable rights.

For example, I have no problem whatsoever with an outright prohibition on foreign, collective, or fictitious "person" landownership in our country. Real and natural persons only, as a matter of right, not privilege. The rest as a matter of privilege and not right. I also don't have a problem with reasonable limits set on individual landownership, including "absentee" ownership. I don't want Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to have the ability to buy an entire city, or even state for that matter. But that's easily handled - the moment you charge rent for use of land, your land is subject to laws governing privileges, and not rights.

As far as collective rights or rights for fictitious entities like corporations, I don't believe they have rights anyway. Only individuals have rights. But your worries about the wealthy buying all of the land are unfounded. Don't sell them your land if you don't want them to have it. And if a government comes in and forces you to sell it, then your problem is with the government, not the wealthy people.

The Gold Standard

03-19-2012, 08:52 PM

If your beliefs are that the Earth should be available for equal use by all people and no one should own any of it, then I see your point, and while I don't agree, I can't argue with it.

The argument that the community creates the value of ones land and therefore the benefits of that land should available to everyone in the community is ridiculous.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 12:23 AM

The argument that the community creates the value of ones land and therefore the benefits of that land should available to everyone in the community is ridiculous.
It is an indisputable fact of economics that land's unimproved value arises from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You will search that list in vain for anything the landowner provides. I'm not sure what you mean by "the benefits of that land," but it is likewise indisputable that the landholder owes the community just compensation for the value he takes from it, and the pre-existing opportunity of which he forcibly deprives others, by virtue of holding the land in his own possession.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 12:26 AM

But your worries about the wealthy buying all of the land are unfounded. Don't sell them your land if you don't want them to have it.
No, those fears are very well founded, as the history of every country that has ever had private landowning shows. Landowning is a privilege that tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands. It happened in Egypt, it happened in Rome, it happened in Japan, in China, in India, in Russia, in France, in England, and it is happening in the USA. Look at California since Prop 13 slashed property taxes in half, and then kept reducing them: more and more land in fewer and fewer (mainly corporate) hands.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 12:28 AM

Do you think property taxes are stopping them from doing this now? They literally have access to an unlimited amount of money. I don't think property taxes are a big concern for them.
Property taxes are indeed a big concern, and pretty much the only thing stopping them from buying up all the land. Look at what happened in CA after Prop 13 slashed property taxes: in the following 10 years, foreign financial interests bought up more land in CA than they had in the previous 100 years.

The Gold Standard

03-20-2012, 07:49 AM

Property taxes are indeed a big concern, and pretty much the only thing stopping them from buying up all the land. Look at what happened in CA after Prop 13 slashed property taxes: in the following 10 years, foreign financial interests bought up more land in CA than they had in the previous 100 years.

That is because interest rates are lower than they have ever been. Property taxes have very little to do with it otherwise they would be buying up the land all over the country where property taxes are the lowest.

The Gold Standard

03-20-2012, 07:51 AM

No, those fears are very well founded, as the history of every country that has ever had private landowning shows. Landowning is a privilege that tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands. It happened in Egypt, it happened in Rome, it happened in Japan, in China, in India, in Russia, in France, in England, and it is happening in the USA. Look at California since Prop 13 slashed property taxes in half, and then kept reducing them: more and more land in fewer and fewer (mainly corporate) hands.

Looking back at how coercive governments distributed land throughout history does nothing to prove how land would be distributed in a society where property rights are respected. If you don't want the fatcats to buy your land, then don't sell it to them. If the government forces you to sell to them, then abolish the government.

The Gold Standard

03-20-2012, 08:06 AM

It is an indisputable fact of economics that land's unimproved value arises from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You will search that list in vain for anything the landowner provides. I'm not sure what you mean by "the benefits of that land," but it is likewise indisputable that the landholder owes the community just compensation for the value he takes from it, and the pre-existing opportunity of which he forcibly deprives others, by virtue of holding the land in his own possession.

This is the old argument that the government should be able to tell you what you can and can't eat because the "community" has to pay for your health care if you eat McDonald's every day and have a heart attack.

First of all, the vast majority of the increase in nominal prices of land are a result of inflation. While it is possible that surrounding government amenities can help increase those prices, the seizure of the property of others to pay for them does not obligate the property owner to pay for that. Again, just like the health care scenario, the solution is that the government stop stealing from others in order to pay for these projects or services rather than use them as an excuse to steal even more and exert even more control over the people.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 10:38 AM

That is because interest rates are lower than they have ever been.
Nope. The foreign buy-up of land in CA happened in the 80s, when real interest rates were high.

Property taxes have very little to do with it otherwise they would be buying up the land all over the country where property taxes are the lowest.
They are, or at least were before the crash. Right now they are mostly too scared to undertake major debts even at record low interest rates, because they know there is still a lot of deleveraging to go through, and interest rates won't stay this low forever.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 10:43 AM

Looking back at how coercive governments distributed land throughout history
All ownership of land is, and always has been, based on coercion. Everywhere, and always.

does nothing to prove how land would be distributed in a society where property rights are respected.
There is no valid property right in land to respect, as ownership of land inherently violates others' rights to liberty. Private landowning always has to lead to concentration of landownership, as a matter of immutable economic law.

If you don't want the fatcats to buy your land, then don't sell it to them.
You falsely -- and absurdly -- assume everyone is born owning land.

If the government forces you to sell to them, then abolish the government.
The fatcats ARE the government. That's how they got to be fatcats.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 11:24 AM

This is the old argument that the government should be able to tell you what you can and can't eat because the "community" has to pay for your health care if you eat McDonald's every day and have a heart attack.
No, it isn't. It is the argument that as the landowner is TAKING VALUE FROM OTHERS BY FORCE, he is obliged to make just compensation for violating their rights.

First of all, the vast majority of the increase in nominal prices of land are a result of inflation.
No, that's a fabrication on your part. As aggregate land rents (and their capitalization, land value) increase faster than GDP, the majority is real increase. In the first 130 years of US history inflation was negligible, but land value increased by two orders of magnitude.

While it is possible that surrounding government amenities can help increase those prices, the seizure of the property of others to pay for them does not obligate the property owner to pay for that.
Yes, actually, it does, because he has no right to a welfare subsidy giveaway financed by the theft of other's rightful property. As all government spending on services and infrastructure goes to the landowner, he is obliged to repay what he is taking.

Again, just like the health care scenario, the solution is that the government stop stealing from others in order to pay for these projects or services rather than use them as an excuse to steal even more and exert even more control over the people.
It is the landowner who is stealing and exerting control over the people.

furface

03-20-2012, 12:29 PM

This is from the site that Steven links to.

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63

He also said that money is like herion to an addict and M2 will help break the addiction.

I strongly agree with this statement. If you give governments too much money, they will get addicted to it and and use it for ill purposes. It's very important to systematically underfund government. Since government is the solution that by definition uses violence, it's important to look at it as a last resort and consistently keep it wanting for funds.

Roy L

03-20-2012, 01:15 PM

If you give governments too much money, they will get addicted to it and and use it for ill purposes.
No, that's just silly rhetoric with no basis in fact.

It's very important to systematically underfund government.
Nope. Objectively wrong. The world's best governments are all well funded, and the worst funded ones are all bad.

Since government is the solution that by definition uses violence, it's important to look at it as a last resort and consistently keep it wanting for funds.
No, such claims are always just stupid. Government that consistently wants for funds is government that is easily corrupted by money, and government that consistently wants for funds looks for other ways to get things done, such as by force. Consider the governments of the early modern era, like France's ancien regime, which lacked money and so used forced labor (corvee), which was far less efficient and far worse for the people.

slamhead

03-20-2012, 01:39 PM

California has prop 13 which has kept property taxes down but they do go up an allowed amount each year. The anti prop 13 people are so disingenuous when they blame the measure on lower tax collection as many of the properties that originally fell under prop 13 have since been sold and reassessed at their new purchase price.

Property taxes in California are considered "secured" meaning they can take your property, but California now has an "unsecured" property tax. My friend owned a fast food restaurant and his equipment in his store such as his refrigerators and deep friers were considered "unsecured" property and he had to pay the state taxes on that equipment annually. It used to be you got to write this equipment off with depreciation.

slamhead

03-20-2012, 01:57 PM

@Roy - Under your theory of land ownership please tell me what would be the purpose of someone "buying up" all the land without any intention of either reselling it or developing it for resale. Why would anyone want to tie up their capital in owning land. If their money would be better served in other markets they would put their money into that market.

helmuth_hubener

03-20-2012, 11:55 PM

I propose that everyone stop answering a certain someone, since he does not belong in this thread, the Opening Poster has asked him to leave, and he lacks the tact and decorum to do so.

helmuth_hubener

03-21-2012, 12:04 AM

Roy L

03-21-2012, 12:39 AM

@Roy - Under your theory of land ownership please tell me what would be the purpose of someone "buying up" all the land without any intention of either reselling it or developing it for resale.
The only reason people would acquire land in a full LVT system would be to use it.

Why would anyone want to tie up their capital in owning land. If their money would be better served in other markets they would put their money into that market.
That is the intention. Landowning is rent seeking: pure wasteful parasitism. We want people to stop hoarding land and do something more productive with their capital.

Roy L

03-21-2012, 12:41 AM

Roy L

03-21-2012, 12:46 AM

California has prop 13 which has kept property taxes down but they do go up an allowed amount each year. The anti prop 13 people are so disingenuous when they blame the measure on lower tax collection as many of the properties that originally fell under prop 13 have since been sold and reassessed at their new purchase price.
But many, especially very valuable corporate-owned properties, have not been sold and are still taxed at their 1978 values. That was the INTENTION of Prop 13: to take the tax burden off the rich and big corporate landowners and put it squarely on working people and consumers. The result is indisputable: property tax revenue has declined by more than 2/3 as a fraction of state and local spending, and is now lower than in any state but Louisiana.

furface

03-21-2012, 07:12 AM

I propose that everyone stop answering a certain someone, since he does not belong in this thread, the Opening Poster has asked him to leave, and he lacks the tact and decorum to do so.

I tend to agree, although I see tragedy in disenfranchised people trying to explain mostly to themselves why they're disenfranchised.

Terms like "evil," when thrown around flippantly are mostly a cry for help.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2187-incompetent-people-ignorant.html

A growing body of psychology research shows that incompetence deprives people of the ability to recognize their own incompetence.

It's interesting that the original American revolution was organized by fairly wealthy people. Things that have happened since maybe not so much. The American revolution was in contrast to sort of "eat the rich" revolutions in places like France and Russia.

My view is that any new American revolution will have to be pushed by the American private sector middle class. The really wealthy are completely delusional about what's going on, as are public sector unions. Really poor people lack the intellectual skills to make it happen. That leaves the private sector middle class.

Steven Douglas

03-21-2012, 09:43 AM

If you give governments too much money, they will get addicted to it and and use it for ill purposes.No, that's just silly rhetoric with no basis in fact.

See, Roy, that's where you need to shut up. Really, keep your stupidity locked inside and stew in it properly, as that's not a response, but blithering idiocy. You are posting in a forum full non-government worshipers and apologists, most of whom believe that their governments at all levels are on a CRACK ADDICTION to ever-growing demands for public funds, the numbers of which speak for themselves, and are too numerous to list.

And your history lesson anecdotes, with your faulty, fallacious cause-and-effect attributions are both tiring and irrelevant. We have a very current example that requires no look into the past or present at other political and economic regimes, each with their own governing complexities. 17 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT is not "silly rhetoric with no basis in fact". It is the reality of Government Gone Wild. You blithering moron, you.

Czolgosz

03-21-2012, 09:58 AM

See, Roy, that's where you need to shut up. Really, keep your stupidity locked inside and stew in it properly, as that's not a response, but blithering idiocy. You are posting in a forum full non-government worshipers and apologists, most of whom believe that their governments at all levels are on a CRACK ADDICTION to ever-growing demands for public funds, the numbers of which speak for themselves, and are too numerous to list.

And your history lesson anecdotes, with your faulty, fallacious cause-and-effect attributions are both tiring and irrelevant. We have a very current example that requires no look into the past or present at other political and economic regimes, each with their own governing complexities. 17 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT is not "silly rhetoric with no basis in fact". It is the reality of Government Gone Wild. You blithering moron, you.

Thank you, I http://smiliesftw.com/x/smiley-rofl.gif

Steven Douglas

03-21-2012, 04:28 PM

So have there been any polls done on this measure? Is there a good chance of it passing?

If not, maybe we could hire our own polling company and do one. It would probably be the only poll done, and we all know how much the slimedia loves to report on poll numbers. We could be the ones biasing the polls for once. Do multiple runs and just don't release any numbers until a run comes out the way we want, do some subtle methodological tricks to skew things, etc., etc., etc.

No polls have been done on the "pro" side, but I have it on good authority that a few (two, possibly three?) polls were commissioned on the KIL ND ("Keep It Local ND" anti-Measure 2) side - and they aren't saying anything. Which, if true, I find encouraging.

No, despite how well the STATE is doing, the people of North Dakota are, by and large, hurting. The property tax has been SO abused in North Dakota (135 "fixes" in the last 28 years), that the sentiment against property taxes is absolutely scathing. I think an honest poll, with no tweaks whatsoever, would reflect that. Which is why I believe the well-funded "other" side hasn't released anything.

I would love to see a poll done, but have no experience in that arena, do you? Do you know how much it costs to get a reputable poll done?

helmuth_hubener

03-21-2012, 06:16 PM

No polls have been done on the "pro" side, but I have it on good authority that a few (two, possibly three?) polls were commissioned on the KIL ND ("Keep It Local ND" anti-Measure 2) side - and they aren't saying anything. Which, if true, I find encouraging.

No, despite how well the STATE is doing, the people of North Dakota are, by and large, hurting. The property tax has been SO abused in North Dakota (135 "fixes" in the last 28 years), that the sentiment against property taxes is absolutely scathing. I think an honest poll, with no tweaks whatsoever, would reflect that. Which is why I believe the well-funded "other" side hasn't released anything.

I would love to see a poll done, but have no experience in that arena, do you? Do you know how much it costs to get a reputable poll done? No, I have no idea. But a congressional campaign costs a million or so, and I think they frequently commission polls (Rand Paul's Senate campaign did) and so it must be a lot less than that. My guess, based on nothing, would be around $10,000 if a good deal, $30,000 if not.

Roy L

03-21-2012, 09:40 PM

Terms like "evil," when thrown around flippantly are mostly a cry for help.
Who's being flippant? There is real evil in the world. It is often institutionalized -- and always rationalized. Private ownership of land is an example. It kills about 15 million people a year. Two Holocausts a year isn't evil?

Roy L

03-21-2012, 09:52 PM

Really, keep your stupidity locked inside and stew in it properly, as that's not a response, but blithering idiocy.
It is fact.

You are posting in a forum full non-government worshipers and apologists, most of whom believe that their governments at all levels are on a CRACK ADDICTION to ever-growing demands for public funds, the numbers of which speak for themselves, and are too numerous to list.
The numbers do indeed speak for themselves, and they offer no support whatever for your absurd claims. The US federal government is raising less revenue as a fraction of GDP than it has in several decades. Far better governments in Europe raise far more money, and yet show no inclination to massacre foreigners, lock up large fractions of their population in jail, or give trillions to rich, greedy, evil filth just for being greedy, rich and evil.

And your history lesson anecdotes, with your faulty, fallacious cause-and-effect attributions are both tiring and irrelevant.
Such willfully ignorant comments are simply a declaration that you have no intention of paying any heed to facts -- from which your own claims lack any support whatsoever.

We have a very current example that requires no look into the past or present at other political and economic regimes, each with their own governing complexities. 17 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT is not "silly rhetoric with no basis in fact".
It also isn't a government obtaining more and more revenue. It's a government obtaining less and less. And the truly evil purposes governments devote resources to -- jailing millions of innocent people, killing foreigners by the thousands, giving money to the richest, greediest, most evil parasites in the world -- are typically not being undertaken by governments that are raising lots of revenue, but by a government that is raising less revenue than it has in 60 years.

It is the reality of Government Gone Wild. You blithering moron, you.
The facts prove me right and you wrong. I don't know any simper way to explain that to you.

eduardo89

03-21-2012, 10:19 PM

Roy, do you not get it? Pardon my cussing, but fuck off this thread. Take you LVT drivel to it's appropriate thread.

Roy L

03-21-2012, 10:43 PM

Roy, do you not get it? Pardon my cussing, but fuck off this thread. Take you LVT drivel to it's appropriate thread.
Get knotted. Facts about land value taxation are entirely appropriate in this thread, because the property tax that fools think ND should abolish is in fact two opposite taxes, one of which is a land value tax. A property tax taxes the value of improvements, which measures what their owner contributes to the wealth of the community, and also taxes the value of land, which measures what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner. TWO OPPOSITE TAXES. It is absolutely crucial to understand and remember this fact when discussing property taxes, because only by taking full account of such facts can one understand how property taxes are so beneficial in places like CT where land values are high and the tax burden rests mainly on land value, but so destructive in places like Detroit, where land values are near zero and the tax burdens mainly improvements.