• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we eliminate taxes that tax you for the right to own property?

Should we eliminate taxes that tax you for the right to own property?

  • Total voters
    31
The hints we take from the past have to keep in mind some of the major economic factors about the past that no longer apply. Comparing monetary policy from the 19th century to today's monetary policies is difficult because we now have a federal reserve and a fiat currency. That makes a HUGE difference. Comparing income tax rates from the 50s to the tax rates today is difficult because we were post-WWII but pre-globalization. That's a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...
I agree...for the most part. We still have decades to compare to we can also compare with tax policies to other countries. Conservatives point to Sweden and I agree with the fact that Sweden lowering their top rate from something like 90% to 75% increased revenue. At the extreme yes it can make an impact. At the same time we can point to nations like Germany with higher rates who are definately competitive with the US when it comes to growth. I have no problem with people arguing over tax policy. That's how we should determine tax policy...through debate over the merits and costs over changes to the tax code. My issue is this crazy idea that lower taxes have this massive upside (spur economic growth) and no downside (lower taxes offset by that growth). That's just wrong. It's a faulty "have your cake and eat" it view.

In theory it most certainly could, in the very same way that any other stimulus could. The COST of a stimulus has be to offset by the economic activity it stirs up. It simply does not do this in every case. We're seeing that right now. In that sense it works just like any other stimulant (e.g. coffee, amphetamines, etc.). You enjoy one of your first coffees, it can wake you up, give you all sorts of energy, focus, etc. But if you keep drinking and drinking it, more frequently and in higher and higher quantities, it eventually loses its potency, and eventually you'll have issues with tolerance, dependence and withdrawal and the "fix" becomes the new problem.
Click to expand...

I do agree that differnt measures are more effective in different situations. I hold the view of the President...that tax cuts have become the cure all to the right. The problem with the rights "cure all" is it's not even related to the symptoms. We have a demand problem not a capital investment problem. Tax cuts for the middle class have an impact but there's not companies out there starving for capital.

As for a stimulus...there are times a stimulus wouldn't be beneficial. The thing is economist on the left agree with that.
 
I have always thought it was against our country's base policy to tax social security. It is not really an income but a tax which we paid into our whole lives and are now getting back. It is nice to see that some states are starting to get the message and don't tax social security checks with State taxes.

It is unfair to tax a tax
 
wolfman24 said:
I have always thought it was against our country's base policy to tax social security. It is not really an income but a tax which we paid into our whole lives and are now getting back. It is nice to see that some states are starting to get the message and don't tax social security checks with State taxes.

It is unfair to tax a tax
Click to expand...

I always thought it was interesting the views you get on supporting taxing social security. Now before I begin I should mention I don't support social security, but its always interesting that the people that do will say the elderly need and deserve the income but because its income it needs to be taxed. This seems like a rather large contradiction to me. If they need it and deserve it than why don't they need and deserve it in full? If I am to believe their basic views on the progressive income tax system and why they believe income should be taxed this seems to be something they would not agree with, but for some reason they fail to uphold their view on the poor not being taxed in such a fashion in this case. It always just goes back to the idea that the state needs revenue, but why? So the state needs revenue and in order to get that revenue they are taxing money that was supposedly designed to not able to be used for other government expenses and this is something they are rather upset about if done so on the way in, but why not on the way out? How very interesting. Its like its fine if we use it for other government expenses when we give it back out but its not fine when we are putting it in to begin with. I don't really understand the difference one way or the other and why if you were going to pick which is acceptable you would pick the way out and not the way in as the acceptable time to use it for other expenses.

I do however agree it is rather ridiculous to tax a tax.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is all just revolving around the rich though as if the amount you have is somehow important here to it being an acceptable avenue or not. I do not believe such things matter to the overall question.
Click to expand...

What matters is that a person who OWNS proerty should have have to have continus income to KEEP that property.
This should extend ONLY to a primary home......and not a super mansion or 2nd home.

Look at the women that lost her home for a $300 water bill.............

in a world like this who is DUMB ENOUGH to buy a "home"......
 
And if we eliminate these taxes, what do we replace them with?
 
ecofarm said:
She was probably negligent in maintaining the car's registration. Now she better get that badboy legal, or her friends are gonna cut her off and kick her ass out of the crack-flophouse.
Click to expand...

My friend spends $300-400 year for tags in MN on a pickup.

I WAS required to pay $350 for a van in WA. (i "moved" LOL)

I jsut paid 40% taxes on a SCOOTER. (sales and lic fees)

the 47% dont pay taxes! F U!
 
Last edited:
No. Its sensible to have these taxes.
 
ecofarm said:
Income tax.
Click to expand...

income or other tax does not matter...............it still a tax.

on income.

Rich pay 15%

wE PAY 25% TO 50%. (including FICA, and all other taxes)

yOU DAYS ARE NUMBERED rich scum
 
Henrin said:
Some good examples of this would be car registration and property taxes where you are charged to use your property, be it your car, or your home. When the government charges you for use they are in effect taking ownership of whatever it might be over, be it again, your car or your home and in effect making you a renter. It is clear this is a violation of property rights in on both front, but the question remains do we as a people agree with it? There is of course other examples of such taxes and my question does in fact include them as well.
Click to expand...

My primary complaint is with real estate-type property taxes- land and home ownership. To me, the taxation should occur only upon exchange in the marketplace, or iow, when I buy or sell property, and not yearly, when the penalty for non-payment of those taxes is possession of your property by the state. With a car, I'm a little more lenient with my tolerance of those taxes, because I use my car on public roads and highways, and I need to maintain it in a condition which is not a public safety issue.
 
274ina said:
Its Sensible to have to PAY to be allowed to OWN property?????

Its a old scam of the rich Mr Socialist.
Click to expand...

Yes its sensible. Why? Because these taxes pay for various things especially education my friend. Property tax fund schools
 
haymarket said:
And if we eliminate these taxes, what do we replace them with?
Click to expand...
Since real estate and personal property taxes are levied by individual states, that would not be our decision to make. It would be up to the people of the state contemplating such elimination.
 
Henrin said:
Some good examples of this would be car registration and property taxes where you are charged to use your property, be it your car, or your home. When the government charges you for use they are in effect taking ownership of whatever it might be over, be it again, your car or your home and in effect making you a renter. It is clear this is a violation of property rights in on both front, but the question remains do we as a people agree with it? There is of course other examples of such taxes and my question does in fact include them as well.

It should also be noted for our liberal friends that in many states you must renew your registration on your car every year and this can run easily up in the hundreds of dollars. Obviously, this can make it challenging for the poorer among us to pay such fees. Considering that they are supporters of the progressive tax system and enjoy the argument that the poor can not pay higher taxes when arguing for such a system it would make sense then to believe they would not be in support of this kind of tax.
Click to expand...

I not only have an issue with the fundamental concept of paying the government for the right to own property, but it also comes down to double or triple taxation. When I make money, a large portion of that is taken away by the government. I then take what is remaining and try to buy something to sustain my family, at which point the government taxes me again for using said money. A lot of people try to point out that income tax is only 30% or however much, but when you add up the total taxes given to the government through income and purchases, the realized rate is actually much higher.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes its sensible. Why? Because these taxes pay for various things especially education my friend. Property tax fund schools
Click to expand...

That's not even working out too well either. Schools in Bloomfield Hills, MI compared to some of the Detroit public schools down the road don't appear to be getting a terribly equitable deal.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's not even working out too well either. Schools in Bloomfield Hills, MI compared to some of the Detroit public schools down the road don't appear to be getting a terribly equitable deal.
Click to expand...

So we should just get rid of the taxes now and make it a whole of a lot ****ing worse? I agree, the system is not working out well for a lot of the impoverished cities school districts but the answer is not to get rid of property taxes.
 
Henrin said:
Some good examples of this would be car registration and property taxes where you are charged to use your property, be it your car, or your home. When the government charges you for use they are in effect taking ownership of whatever it might be over, be it again, your car or your home and in effect making you a renter. It is clear this is a violation of property rights in on both front, but the question remains do we as a people agree with it? There is of course other examples of such taxes and my question does in fact include them as well.

It should also be noted for our liberal friends that in many states you must renew your registration on your car every year and this can run easily up in the hundreds of dollars. Obviously, this can make it challenging for the poorer among us to pay such fees. Considering that they are supporters of the progressive tax system and enjoy the argument that the poor can not pay higher taxes when arguing for such a system it would make sense then to believe they would not be in support of this kind of tax.
Click to expand...

You aren't taxed for the right to own property. You are taxed to provide services for the property you own...schools, roads, LEO's, firemen, libraries, park districts. As for your car? That's another way to raise money. it's all just a means to raise money. I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the poor wouldn't support their paying any kind of tax. But I'm also sure they're fine with the rest of it paying those taxes, because they certainly want and use the services those taxes provide.

Edit: Eleven posters voted to do away with property taxes. WTH???
 
Federalist said:
Since real estate and personal property taxes are levied by individual states, that would not be our decision to make. It would be up to the people of the state contemplating such elimination.
Click to expand...

As one of those people, what would you replace the revenue stream with?
 
MaggieD said:
You aren't taxed for the right to own property. You are taxed to provide services for the property you own...schools, roads, LEO's, firemen, libraries, park districts. As for your car? That's another way to raise money. it's all just a means to raise money. I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the poor wouldn't support their paying any kind of tax. But I'm also sure they're fine with the rest of it paying those taxes, because they certainly want and use the services those taxes provide.

Edit: Eleven posters voted to do away with property taxes. WTH???
Click to expand...

Stop making sense Maggie. ;)
 
Federalist said:
What makes you think that I am advocating bankruptcy?
Click to expand...

Lets clear that up then shall we? Are you advocating states getting rid of taxes on property but not replacing the revenue with anything else?
 
MaggieD said:
You aren't taxed for the right to own property. You are taxed to provide services for the property you own...schools, roads, LEO's, firemen, libraries, park districts. As for your car? That's another way to raise money. it's all just a means to raise money. I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the poor wouldn't support their paying any kind of tax. But I'm also sure they're fine with the rest of it paying those taxes, because they certainly want and use the services those taxes provide.

Edit: Eleven posters voted to do away with property taxes. WTH???
Click to expand...

Even if the taxes were to have to come from another form of taxation, I'd rather see that happen.

It's plain and simple: You are being taxed in order to own something. If I were to buy a piece of property out in the country, do sustenance farming, and never leave my property, why should I be paying anybody anything to do such?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom