• 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
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, what makes you think I advocate that? I specifically said that I am not suggesting any changes in my state.
 
MaggieD said:
Edit: Eleven posters voted to do away with property taxes. WTH???
Click to expand...

WTH is that we are already being taxed through the noses, and we are seeing government waste like never before. I personally resent the hell out of paying thousands of dollars per year for living on my property, when I don't have even water/sewer service, or other utilities available, and I don't have children in school, and after having paid a huge amount for the property itself, I don't own it outright, as the state can take possession of it if I don't pay them yearly, at their discretion of what the property is worth.
 
lizzie said:
WTH is that we are already being taxed through the noses, and we are seeing government waste like never before. I personally resent the hell out of paying thousands of dollars per year for living on my property, when I don't have even water/sewer service, or other utilities available, and I don't have children in school, and after having paid a huge amount for the property itself, I don't own it outright, as the state can take possession of it if I don't pay them yearly, at their discretion of what the property is worth.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I'm in much the same boat. My property taxes, for my little 3-BR, 2-BA home with 1-car attached garage are $4,800 a year. I've never had children in school. I get it. And I completely resent my county/city for the spending spree that's caused our real estate taxes to be absolutely outrageous. It's a bit like herding cats. Voters are powerless to fight the status quo.

I definitely get it. If we were run by a government that wasn't so concerned with keeping their own little selves in power, our taxes would be 50% or less of what they are. Yet, the fact remains that property taxes are just one more way to collect revenue -- and pay the bills . . . as exorbitant and wasteful as they are.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes its sensible. Why? Because these taxes pay for various things especially education my friend. Property tax fund schools
Click to expand...

Schools need to be state funded, as they mostly are. Not fudned by stealing property because they dont have a job now or are retired and cant pay massive taxes.

This would eliminate all unequality in schools because of poor area funding vs rich area funding. All schools would pay the same and get the same
funding for the same things.
 
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...
IMO land tax is justified, though we could debate specific tax rates.
 
274ina said:
Schools need to be state funded, as they mostly are.
Click to expand...
fk791z.png


Mostly by which you mean maybe by 57% of funding received comes from the state in the vast majority of schools, and the rest comes mostly from local through property taxes. Just think about if we got rid of that 40% of funding.. Is that going to do more good?

Not fudned by stealing property because they dont have a job now or are retired and cant pay massive taxes.
Click to expand...
Oh cmon...


This would eliminate all unequality in schools because of poor area funding vs rich area funding. All schools would pay the same and get the same
funding for the same things.
Click to expand...

Yes which would also make education a lot worse in this country.
 
lizzie said:
WTH is that we are already being taxed through the noses, and we are seeing government waste like never before. I personally resent the hell out of paying thousands of dollars per year for living on my property, when I don't have even water/sewer service, or other utilities available, and I don't have children in school, and after having paid a huge amount for the property itself, I don't own it outright, as the state can take possession of it if I don't pay them yearly, at their discretion of what the property is worth.
Click to expand...
I would definitely agree with changing things in my own state to reduce the cost of state government. Since schooling is not (economically speaking) a public good, I would certainly get behind the idea of education being provided by the private sector, rather than through state socialism.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
fk791z.png


Mostly by which you mean maybe by 57% of funding received comes from the state in the vast majority of schools, and the rest comes mostly from local through property taxes. Just think about if we got rid of that 40% of funding.. Is that going to do more good?


Oh cmon...




Yes which would also make education a lot worse in this country.
Click to expand...



well as you can see by your chart, only 10% of rich suberb funding is from property taxes. So making it all equal non-prop-tax funding would equal out
all schools.

Woman Loses Home Over a $362 Water Bill -- the Sneaky Way Investors Exploit Poor Homeowners - Democratic Underground

Shur....... equal funding will make schools worse....LOL
 
274ina said:
well as you can see by your chart, only 10% of rich suberb funding is from property taxes. So making it all equal non-prop-tax funding would equal out
all schools.
Click to expand...
What about the cities? Where most underdeveloped schools are? Or how about rural schools?

Woman Loses Home Over a $362 Water Bill -- the Sneaky Way Investors Exploit Poor Homeowners - Democratic Underground
Click to expand...
What?
Shur....... equal funding will make schools worse....LOL
Click to expand...
Think about it. Hows the state budget going to react?
 
Federalist said:
I would definitely agree with changing things in my own state to reduce the cost of state government. Since schooling is not (economically speaking) a public good, I would certainly get behind the idea of education being provided by the private sector, rather than through state socialism.
Click to expand...

and could you explain how educating the next and future generations is NOT A PUBLIC GOOD?
 
The whole tax system needs to be reformed before we can even discuss which types of taxes stay and go. I'm no expert on the topic by any means, but holy **** our tax system is a mess.
 
Federalist said:
I would definitely agree with changing things in my own state to reduce the cost of state government. Since schooling is not (economically speaking) a public good, I would certainly get behind the idea of education being provided by the private sector, rather than through state socialism.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago, I was doing some reading about private schools, and their cost, and was surprised to find out that private school is about as expensive as daycare in many cases. If people can pay for daycare, why should they be opposed to paying for a better education for their children?
 
It depends which kind of property taxes we're talking about. For automobiles, I think they should exist but they should be limited. We need to keep in mind that car-owners are imposing a lot of economic externalities (e.g. air pollution, traffic jams, wear and tear on the roads) onto the rest of society, so I don't have a problem with taxing them for the problems they help create. The problem with an automobile tax is when it exceeds the cost of those externalities and just becomes punitive.

For homes, I actually think people aren't taxed enough. Property taxes are a form of taxation that our government doesn't make nearly as much use of as it should. In many ways, taxes on real estate are a near-ideal type of tax, because unlike corporate/income/consumption taxes they don't discourage any behavior that society might want to promote (i.e. the supply of land will not change regardless of whether or not there's a property tax).
 
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...
The examples that you gave have good reasons that you have to pay for.

The car registration is for the use of public roads. The registration money goes to road projects that helps keep them safe to drive on. You can have your car on your own property and never pay registration, as long as you never use the public roads.

You do not own the land that your house sits on. All the land is owned by the state. You are renting the land that is why you pay property taxes. There is something called an allodial title. This kind of title means that you own the land and owe nothing to the state. The only place you can get one of those (in the U.S.) is Texas, even than it is not ez to get.
 
i'm not a big fan of property taxes in principle; it feels like renting your own property, and this has annoyed me since my libertarian days. however, the libertarian alternative would be user fees, which would probably be even more regressive. for example, if there were no fees to renew license and registration, it's likely that the alternative would be more ubiquitous pay-as-you-drive toll roads. the same would be true for primary and secondary education. given this, property taxes and registration fees are slightly preferable.
 
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 voted to eliminate certain property taxes.

I think that only for homes should such taxes be eliminated. But only real homes - property rented out should still be taxed.
 
Kandahar said:
It depends which kind of property taxes we're talking about. For automobiles, I think they should exist but they should be limited. We need to keep in mind that car-owners are imposing a lot of economic externalities (e.g. air pollution, traffic jams, wear and tear on the roads) onto the rest of society, so I don't have a problem with taxing them for the problems they help create. The problem with an automobile tax is when it exceeds the cost of those externalities and just becomes punitive.

For homes, I actually think people aren't taxed enough. Property taxes are a form of taxation that our government doesn't make nearly as much use of as it should. In many ways, taxes on real estate are a near-ideal type of tax, because unlike corporate/income/consumption taxes they don't discourage any behavior that society might want to promote (i.e. the supply of land will not change regardless of whether or not there's a property tax).
Click to expand...
States and counties that have high property taxes tend to drive away property owners. All other factors being the same; if you can buy a house in one county and pay $300 less a year to buy a house in the next county, would you pay extra for no reason?
 
comedy4all said:
The examples that you gave have good reasons that you have to pay for.

The car registration is for the use of public roads. The registration money goes to road projects that helps keep them safe to drive on. You can have your car on your own property and never pay registration, as long as you never use the public roads.
Click to expand...

How many different kind of taxes do we need for roads and if I can't use my car than I clearly do not own it outside of name only. Unless of course you think I'm allowed to drive next to roads everywhere I go, which I am not. The fact is that in order to use my car in a usual matter I have to pay the state. I should not have to pay the state to use my car in the way it was designed to be used.

You do not own the land that your house sits on. All the land is owned by the state. You are renting the land that is why you pay property taxes. There is something called an allodial title. This kind of title means that you own the land and owe nothing to the state. The only place you can get one of those (in the U.S.) is Texas, even than it is not ez to get.
Click to expand...

Then no one really owns land at all in the us and what I thought was the problem is actually far worse. It felt like the mob before, but now the difference is non-existent. Thanks for clarifying..I guess.

I guess the next poll should be "Should people in the US be able to own land outright without an allodial title" This country is a ****ing disaster without doubt.
 
Last edited:
Surtr said:
The whole tax system needs to be reformed before we can even discuss which types of taxes stay and go. I'm no expert on the topic by any means, but holy **** our tax system is a mess.
Click to expand...

It seems to me we need to get our property rights back before we start to worry about the tax structure. Rights first, taxes second.
 
Henrin said:
How many different kind of taxes do we need for roads and if I can't use my car than I clearly do not own it outside of name only. Unless of course you think I'm allowed to drive next to roads everywhere I go, which I am not.



Then no one really owns land at all in the us and what I thought was the problem is actually far worse. It felt like the mob before, but now the difference is non-existent. Thanks for clarifying..I guess.

I guess the next poll should be "Should people in the US be able to own land outright without an allodial title" This country is a ****ing disaster without doubt.
Click to expand...
Michal badnarik has a lecture that you can watch on youtube that will explain it all.

This is the one on allodial titles.
Do you own your house? - YouTube
 
You pay for your home and property taxes for 30 years and then when you retire, if you're lucky, you can afford to live in the home you have worked all those years to pay off. Property taxes make retirement difficult for some, and very difficult for others.

One can never pay enough taxes. Our elected officials and those who scream more, more, more make sure of that.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
and could you explain how educating the next and future generations is NOT A PUBLIC GOOD?
Click to expand...
Economists define public goods as non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Education does not satisfy that definition.
 
Talk about entitlements...we need to get rid of every sorry ass in Washington...all of whom believe that they are "entitled" to use the taxpayers any way that they wish.

The problem folks isn't Demos, Repubs...etc raping everybody on a daily basis. The problem isn't the Party Machines who spend billions to mind-**** you at every waking opportunity. Look in the mirror.
 
lizzie said:
Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago, I was doing some reading about private schools, and their cost, and was surprised to find out that private school is about as expensive as daycare in many cases. If people can pay for daycare, why should they be opposed to paying for a better education for their children?
Click to expand...
Perhaps because they'd prefer that other people pay to educate their children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom