You Can't Own Land In The USA

[DebateChallenge]

So call it a use tax instead of a property tax. Same with a car. You can own it, but you can't use it unless you pay the fees.

Sure you can, you just can't use it on public roads. There are people with large areas of land, farmers for instance, who buy cars only for use on their land and they never register them or insure them because they don't have to. They're not using them on public roads.

If you want to call property tax a use tax, lets say I own some land that I never use, I don't live on it and I don't go to it. Should I still have to pay a "use" tax even though Im not using it?

 

[jimbo]

Sure you can, you just can't use it on public roads. There are people with large areas of land, farmers for instance, who buy cars only for use on their land and they never register them or insure them because they don't have to. They're not using them on public roads.

If you want to call property tax a use tax, lets say I own some land that I never use, I don't live on it and I don't go to it. Should I still have to pay a "use" tax even though Im not using it?

You've got me there. I've been in the real estate business since 1965. Always felt kind of like you. But the fact don't use land, cars, or other property doesn't mean you don't owe taxes on the property.

 

[JasperL]

Let's start with estate tax. Your estate is the total of your possessions and debts left behind when you die. An executor, either named in the will or appointed by law, is placed in charge of the estate and must pay off outstanding debts, liquidating property to do so if necessary. Funeral expenses and administrative costs (that is, payment to the executor for dealing with all of this) are taken out next. Whatever is left over is what can be passed on, but before that happens, the federal government takes its share.

Plus I live in PA unfortunately where they do have an inheritance tax.

Right, I've done a few dozen Estate tax returns, many more gift tax returns. I'm not sure what you're disputing in what I said.

I probably misunderstood your point about who pays the tax. As you say, it's paid by the estate, and not by the heirs. Obviously their share of the estate is reduced by estate taxes, so the heirs "pay" indirectly.

I only said something because over the years I've been asked 500 times by someone inheriting or about to inherit, "How much estate tax will I owe on the inheritance?" The answer is $0.00 - the executor pays the tax generally before distributions, but in any case heirs aren't responsible for paying any estate tax. If grandma leaves you $10,000 or $1,000,000 and you get that check in the mail from the law firm or executor handling the estate - estate tax YOU owe = $0.00.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Right, I've done a few dozen Estate tax returns, many more gift tax returns. I'm not sure what you're disputing in what I said.

I probably misunderstood your point about who pays the tax. As you say, it's paid by the estate, and not by the heirs. Obviously their share of the estate is reduced by estate taxes, so the heirs "pay" indirectly.

I only said something because over the years I've been asked 500 times by someone inheriting or about to inherit, "How much estate tax will I owe on the inheritance?" The answer is $0.00 - the executor pays the tax generally before distributions, but in any case heirs aren't responsible for paying any estate tax. If grandma leaves you $10,000 or $1,000,000 and you get that check in the mail from the law firm or executor handling the estate - estate tax YOU owe = $0.00.

I am not disputing what you said. Unfortunately many states have different rules. I was pointing out how you don't really own anything because everything is taxed usually once if not several times. Our government seems to keep on coming up with more ways to feather their nest off of our hard work.

 

[Deuce]

What does that have to do with it?

If the services it pays for are ongoing, why wouldn't the tax be ongoing?

 

[DebateChallenge]

So call it a use tax instead of a property tax.

Also, if I own something I shouldn't have to pay to use it. If Im paying to use it that means I don't own it and instead Im renting it. Rent means to pay for use, so if Im paying to use something that means Im renting it from whoever Im paying and that whoever Im paying is the owner.

 

[Deuce]

Also, if I own something I shouldn't have to pay to use it. If Im paying to use it that means I don't own it and instead Im renting it. Rent means to pay for use, so if Im paying to use something that means Im renting it from whoever Im paying and that whoever Im paying is the owner.

You're using the services it pays for.

 

[JasperL]

Also, if I own something I shouldn't have to pay to use it. If Im paying to use it that means I don't own it and instead Im renting it. Rent means to pay for use, so if Im paying to use something that means Im renting it from whoever Im paying and that whoever Im paying is the owner.

All that's fine and all but what is the alternative? If you don't like 'renting' your property from the local government, then the taxes need to be raised some other way. What do you suggest is a better alternative?

FWIW, I don't find the "rent" argument all that persuasive. There is a difference between someone who rents the farm my mom owns in W. Tennessee and her. She owns the property, gets a cut of the crops, can kick off the current farmers next year for any reason or no reason, decide to make it into a hunting preserve, lease it to deer and turkey and quail hunters, she gets the money off the timber sales, and if an auto plant opens up nearby (that's our 'lottery' pick - come on foreign auto makers!! West Tennessee is an ideal location!!) then she enjoys the 500%-1,000% appreciation in the property overnight as it goes from marginal farmland, most of it with lots of clay and rocks to a great location near an intersection for houses, businesses, etc. What the farmer who rents it gets is kicked off the property forever.

At any rate, what seems more accurate is to say that the local government owns a small minority interest in all property in the area, but what they own is a risk free annuity based on the fluctuating property value, and in return this minority owner promises to provide a set of services each year to the partnership - law enforcement, fire protection, garbage collection and schooling for the majority owners, all in exchange for this minority interest.

 

[Quag]

Also, if I own something I shouldn't have to pay to use it. If Im paying to use it that means I don't own it and instead Im renting it. Rent means to pay for use, so if Im paying to use something that means Im renting it from whoever Im paying and that whoever Im paying is the owner.

So then you dont even own yourself because you have to pay for food in order to be able to do anything other than dying.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So then you dont even own yourself because you have to pay for food in order to be able to do anything other than dying.

We need food, water, and air to live. Nature's rules not the government's.

 

[Quag]

We need food, water, and air to live. Nature's rules not the government's.

You need fuel to run your car science rules not governments you need energy to run your lights science rules not governments
etc etc
the argument was absurd on the face of it because I am just mocking it