Ten Days That Shook Olympia

[G-spotter]

Ten s that shook their rumps.

[G-spotter]

OOOOOh, kkk, "a car is not land". Property is property whether it's dirt or wheels.

[ashw_justin]

Does that mean I can't fly at christmas this season?

I don't know, can you pass these qualifications?

[Bug]

That's what most abused women have in common isn't it?

 

Anyway, if you have to be abusive, this seems like the best place. I like a spirited arguement. It would just be nice to get a few more substantive posts per capita if you are going to bash people for your own behaviors. The result is tediom.

[archenemy]

What is "ownership" to you? What does it exactly mean to you?

 

once you pay for your property (e.g. a loan if you have one), you are free and clear. you are not taxed for your property, and you can not be evicted for any reason. it's yours until you die.

And when you die, do the folks who inherit your land have to pay taxes on that as a one time thing, or do they have to pay over a schedule like you originally did?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And when you die, do the folks who inherit your land have to pay taxes on that as a one time thing, or do they have to pay over a schedule like you originally did?

 

I'm arguing against property taxes period, not just after you've paid off your loan. at least for a primary residence that is.

 

as for an inheritence tax - different topic.

 

[chucK]

You're not arguing about it (in the conventional sense anyway of offering positions based on facts, logic and reasoning), so far all you've done is bitched about it.

 

Wah wah, I want this, because I do.

[archenemy]

And when you die, do the folks who inherit your land have to pay taxes on that as a one time thing, or do they have to pay over a schedule like you originally did?

 

I'm arguing against property taxes period, not just after you've paid off your loan. at least for a primary residence that is.

 

as for an inheritence tax - different topic.

So technically, if everyone who owned land right now didn't sell it and only passed it on, then there would be no state income from land taxes.

That would show em.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You're not arguing about it (in the conventional sense anyway of offering positions based on facts, logic and reasoning), so far all you've done is bitched about it.

 

Wah wah, I want this, because I do.

 

you read way too much in between the lines, and seem incapable of separating argument of an abstract idea from personalization. consequently, don't be surprise if I dismiss any overtures from you for a supposedly "serious" debate. furthermore, this forum is clearly not in any way amenable to serious debate in the first place.

 

[archenemy]

I feel serious.

[ClimbingPanther]

Feel free to move to a state that doesn't have property taxes. Oh wait, there isn't one. Well, in that case, feel free to move to any one of the following low property tax states:

 

Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia, Mississippi and Arkansas

 

Stay here and quit whining, or move to a less expensive shithole. You get what you pay for. The choice is yours.

 

Can you rebutt it with more than a smiley?

 

No, I didn't think so.

not really sure where you got the idea that you deserve a response, O King Thoughtful Rebutter

 

G-spotter, here's your car analogy shoot-down:

the fees for owning a car are actually nil (i think, feel free to prove me wrong). there's no tax that anybody owes for simply having a car sit on their property & be driven to and from the mailbox.

sales tax applies to any good/service, so that's a given. there's registration & insurance requirements for actually driving on public roads, and that makes a lot of sense. but none simply because of the fact you own it.

 

chucK, I agree with your sentiment that taxes should be levied ideally against those who benefit most, but your examples don't fly. owning property fundamentally has nothing to do with city services, as you get a bill for those in the mail. if that doesn't cover the costs associated with the services, then increase the rates. taxing for school funding is bound to be inequitable because the more kids you have, the less money you have to send them to school. no way to make that one really work by taxing those who benefit most, so I'd favor that being rolled in to a state income tax. in fact, the whole premise of basing school funding on property taxes & levies contributes to the unequal funding for schools that the average liberal whines about until he/she's blue in the face. ever wondered why rich communities have more money for school when their funding comes from rich people? whew, that's a stumper!

 

property tax is pure BS, and I'm surprised how many people actually support it.

[lizard_brain]

As unimpressed with the protesters as I am, I'd like to think that at least some of them would actually take up arms (or otherwise support the government) against a real threat to our country, if it existed (and no sorry, Islamofascistan does not count). But I could just be projecting.

 

Here, here.

 

(-Mildly impressed with the protesters myself, just still can't figure out why they're blocking them from coming back.)

Edited November 16, 2007 by lizard_brain

[chucK]

I haven't expected any serious response from you for a long time now.

 

But one can always hope. I believe in redemption.

[prole]

As unimpressed with the protesters as I am, I'd like to think that at least some of them would actually take up arms (or otherwise support the government) against a real threat to our country, if it existed (and no sorry, Islamofascistan does not count). But I could just be projecting.

 

Here, here.

 

(-Mildly impressed with the protesters myself, just still can't figure out why they're blocking them from coming back.)

 

From the originally linked article: "The reasoning was that the military equipment was part of the ongoing war against the Iraqi people, that is was being refurbished and repaired at Ft. Lewis to be used again in Iraq, that it was part of a revolving door of war materials coming from and going back to Iraq."

[Dannible]

As unimpressed with the protesters as I am, I'd like to think that at least some of them would actually take up arms (or otherwise support the government) against a real threat to our country, if it existed (and no sorry, Islamofascistan does not count). But I could just be projecting.

 

On Saturday night when the grumpy old pro war guys who were bastards to anyone who wasn't waving a flag left, a few of the anti-war people went over to talk to the more civil pro war people. Those pro war people agreed that the police had been overly forceful (others thought that the police should have used much more force), and the two groups agreed that someday they might be taking up arms against the government side by side. It was one of the only times I saw the two groups agree on something.

[chucK]

You say my examples don't fly? Where do you think the pipes that bring water to and from your house come from (maybe your utility bills pay for some, but isn't some of it local govt. sponsored)? How about the police that keep your covetous neighbor from coming and taking your property by force? The fire department that will come and put out the fire in your neighborhood so it won't spread to your house? Roads and other infrastructure? The property owner doesn't benefit from that?

 

Schools are the only one of your examples I might be willing to argue, but in my mind educating children enriches the entire community. I'd much rather live among a reasonably well-educated populace, than in some gated community, afraid to go to the 7-11 for fear of the roaming gangs who couldn't get a job because they never learned to read or exist peacefully with their peers. Property taxes are local. Local people decide what they're used for. Way better than sending your money to a more distant entity like the State or Federal government (at least for educating the local populace and building roads).

 

And if you don't like property taxes, what's your answer? Read Recycled's post. I thought it summarized the issue well.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So technically, if everyone who owned land right now didn't sell it and only passed it on, then there would be no state income from land taxes.

That would show em.

 

I'm arguing that with property taxes you don't really own land. Private ownership is a fantasy, and strikes me as fundamentally unfair.

 

As for the "state" they have plenty of creative ways to tax the shit out of me and you. Were you not recently complaining about our progressive tax system being unfair?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I haven't expected any serious response from you for a long time now.

 

and yet you feel compelled to repeatedly attempt to engage in a serious discussion with me. what's the definition of insanity again?

[archenemy]

I'll post some pictures.

Have you posted these? I would like to see them.

[ClimbingPanther]

You say my examples don't fly? Where do you think the pipes that bring water to and from your house come from? How about the police that keep your covetous neighbor from coming and taking your property by force? The fire department that will come and put out the fire in your neighborhood so it won't spread to your house? Roads and other infrastructure? The property owner doesn't benefit from that?

 

Schools are the only one of your examples I might be willing to argue, but in my mind educating children enriches the entire community. I'd much rather live among a reasonably well-educated populace, than in some gated community, afraid to go to the 7-11 for fear of the roaming gangs who couldn't get a job because they never learned to read or exist peacefully with their peers.

 

And if you don't like property taxes, what's your answer. Read Recycled's post. I thought it summarized the issue well.

Ideally, taxation should be administratively efficient and equitable. Income taxes fail those objectives miserably (think how much $ is spent on accountants just to figure out Federal tax code).

chucK, I know you can present a better rebuttal of the school funding problem than saying "my way of taxation or no taxation at all." I wasn't claiming that we should do away with school funding, so presenting my position as such only serves to make it easy to shoot me down. Seriously, I believe it's the single biggest flaw of property tax, and it serves to perpetuate wealth by providing rich communities with better education systems to help their kids get better paying jobs and become rich too.

I would be very much in favor of replacing property tax with a state income tax. Just because Federal income tax is complicated doesn't mean a state income tax would have to be complicated. Recycled didn't seem to give income tax a fair treatment in his "analysis" so I didn't give his "argument" much weight.

[JayB]

What would the problem be with raising all of the state's revenue on income, dividends, and capital gains from the sale of property - no matter what form the property takes? Not saying they don't exist, just wondering what people who favor property taxes claim that they are?

 

Seems like, as CP said, this would eliminate one of the prime sources of the inequality in school funding. I would love to see all public schools funded equally, one because it strikes me as the most fair, and two because it would show that the difference in school performance have little to the dollars spent there, and quite a bit to do with the students sent there.

 

Another idea might be to limit the total number of years that one is subject to property tax on one's primary residence, so that after say - 25 years of paying property taxes on your principal residence, you are no longer subject to such taxes (no such exclusions would apply to other properties that anyone might happen to own). Best of both worlds - people pay property taxes for the 25 years that are most likely to correspond to their prime-earning years, yet can retire without a permanent tax-indenture on the property that has the potential to force them out of their homes if they can't pay the taxes. Compensate for any decline in revenue that results from imposing such a threshold with an increase in the income tax.

[sexual_chocolate]

I'm arguing that with property taxes you don't really own land. Private ownership is a fantasy, and strikes me as fundamentally unfair.

 

My point earlier was that "ownership" is a codified legal abstraction depending upon a whole set of implicities regarding the nature of the "system" we live in. Yes, private ownership quite obviously gives the owner certain functional priveleges that exclude others from these functional priveleges (this is what, at its heart, "private" "ownership" is), and it was here that i was trying to steer the conversation.

 

And yes, you are right in that there is no "ownership" in the sense that you mean it when there is forced taxation, since the state can confiscate properties to fulfill tax obligations (then there is Eminent Domain).

[archenemy]

You say my examples don't fly? Where do you think the pipes that bring water to and from your house come from (maybe your utility bills pay for some, but isn't some of it local govt. sponsored)? How about the police that keep your covetous neighbor from coming and taking your property by force? The fire department that will come and put out the fire in your neighborhood so it won't spread to your house? Roads and other infrastructure? The property owner doesn't benefit from that?

I'm pretty sure that people who rent also get these magical benefits.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I would love to see all public schools funded equally,

 

umm, how would that work? you need to adjust for the area / cost-of-living, would you not? seems there would be disparities in the costs across the board - from salaries to bussing to maintenance/upkeep and even utilities, depending on the school's location. all of a sudden "equal" funding becomes a complicated question.

 

[chucK]

I don't think I said "my way or no way". I just voiced my preference and gave you my reasons. Perhaps you misunderstood my

"might be willing to agree" line. I actually meant that that was one of the places I think we were less far apart on.

 

See my recent edit about the local school taxes thing. For schools I think local control is far superior to State or Federal govt. I don't have a problem with communities getting what they paid for, though a small amount of state or federal subisidies would be nice to alleviate gross disparities.

 

State income tax might be cool. I think it would totally kick ass on the sales tax, but I'd much rather it replace the sales tax than property taxes.