Help North Dakota ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX

[Roy L]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This is from the site that Steven links to.

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/forum/...c.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]

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]

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.