Help North Dakota ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX

[furface]

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]

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]

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.

[Roy L]

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]

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/showthr...-Tax-%28LVT%29

[roho76]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.