"Property tax is theft..." Topic

Plain and simple.

Our state has a cap on actual tax, but NOT a cap on "assessment".

So you're 165,000K house can then be "assessed" to be worth, 225,000 and as a result the tax can then be "adjusted" to meet that assessment.

Second time in a row I have had to appeal their decisions.

Property tax is theft….

There is a new industry in Texas that appeals the tax assessments for you. They take a percentage of any savings they gain you (no savings, no payment). It's worked great for us the last two years.

That's why I still support California's Prop 13. My brother is an appraiser for the assessor's office of his county. He's the guy you would have appealed to (at least his equivalent). He's not much fun to be around from April to July…

There's a pretty good argument that all taxes are theft, but there is one Libertarian leaning economist who argues that a tax on unimproved property is probably the least unethical and least destructive tax. I haven't taken the time yet to peruse this argument.

But property taxes with unlimited reassessment are certainly a pathway to suffering. That's why California passed prop 13 in the first place.

Not that I disagree with you Murphy, but how would you pay for the services that the taxes fund?

The way to feel better about tax is to alter your perspective.

You are not ‘paying' tax, you are ‘buying' civilisation!

I come from a background of put up or shut up.

If you assess my property at some astronomical value, then the government should be obligated to offer me that much to buy it from me (it's worth that, right?). I get 180 days after payment to find a new place with my new downpayment fund, take the moving costs from my profit, and pocket the rest.

It's funny how eminent domain assessments are never more than you paid for the property …

but how would you pay for the services that the taxes fund?

There are plenty of other tax methodologies beyond property tax.

I don't think Murphy's problem is all taxes, or even property tax so much as it is no cap on assessments. It means the government can tax you on a value way beyond what you paid for the property. If I buy a house for $200 USDK, should I have to plan to be taxed on a house worth $500 USDK? … $1.5 USDM? …more?

It functions based on the fictitious concept that objects have intrinsic fiscal value. They do not. An asset is worth whatever you get for it when you sell it, and that's all. If the government is going to buy in to this concept, then they should have to buy all the way in.

Etotheipi has it correct.

Property taxes are regressive and to me oppressive, as they have no relationship with the individual's ability to pay. Just because the government states that your home is worth $500 USDK doesn't meant that you have an income level sufficient to pay their set tax upon that home, and if you cannot pay it, you will be forced to forfeit the home to them. That's not "liberal," that's flat out evil.

Income tax is at least more fair, as it's based on money you do earn and therefore potentially have available to pay the tax. Though truly, it's not a fair tax for the services received, as the rich drives on the same roads as the poor, yet all other things being equal receives no greater benefit from that road than the poor man does, while paying considerably more for its creation and upkeep (and also paying for services which benefit the poor man and not himself at all).

BUT the most fair tax is a sales tax, because it is the one tax which is entirely within the taxpayer's ability to refuse. If you don't want to pay the sales tax, you don't make the purchase which bears it. Simple. Thus, the poor man pays a minimal tax based on his knowledge of what he can or is willing to afford, while the rich man pays more simply because he purchases more goods and services, by his own free choice.

And really, that's also the smartest form of tax, as it's one based on volume, which encourages the government to assure an active and vibrant consumer economic environment— the more people purchase, the better the government does. It's transactional and is simply based on the good old fashioned understanding of "volume." Instead of taxing people out of some silly idea of "fairness", instead encourage people to spend freely, which broadens the economic environment, creates both job and entrepreneurial booms, and brings in more tax revenue, both in and of itself and also as a result.

That's not "liberal," that's flat out evil.

Not that people wouldn't equate evil to socialism, but strictly speaking property tax is socialist. It stems from the idea that the government has the absolute right to "control the means of production and distribution of wealth", to wit, when you "buy" something under socialism, you only own it as long as the government decides you merit owning it, otherwise it is up for redistribution (which is also core to socialist doctrines, but doesn't have as pithy a simple statement).

income tax is at least more fair, as it's based on money you do earn

That's only if it is a flat rate tax.

Progressive taxes have "ledges" at the transition points, so contributing more to society gives you a greater responsibility or a lesser return (depending on how you look at it). Where contributing more equates to working harder, it creates a disincentive.

Flat income tax relates to the idea "he rich drives on the same roads as the poor". Kind of. Ignoring "it depends on where you live", the rich person is producing more (through work or investment), and therefore relying on government protections for those activities as well as the ones he has in common with the poor man from your analogy. The rich man drives the same road, but has equities in more of them and to a larger extent.

encourage people to spend freely

Actually, sales taxes encourage, and in extreme cases force, people to spend less freely. If I buy $100 USD of stuff here and ($100 – sales tax) of stuff there I get less. On the converse side, if I can afford a thing without tax, but can't at the same price under the same conditions except sales tax added, I don't spend. Purchase behaviour and tax-market price interactions are more complex than that, however the principle that "making things cost more disincentivizes spending" holds.

Capital gains taxes encourage spending. If the government's going to take a big cut of my profits, why not just spend the money and enjoy? The principle is rating the immediate experiential value higher than the future potential experiential value. When the future fiscal value is lowered, the relative rating of values shifts.

Good points, and I largely agree (or do not disagree… it's really not a question of whether I agree or not). My point with sales tax is that while it does discourage spending, it does so in an obvious and equitable fashion— one chooses to pay it, or one does not. So yes, it does discourage the purchase of an item with X tax versus an item with X-Y tax (or no tax). Note, however, that sales tax therefore encourages a structure whereby the government wants people to have money so as to purchase things, thereby providing more revenue to the government. It's direct and obvious that if economic activity (that is, buying and selling) is high, and it is high for high value items (because people are wealthier), then the government has a high level of revenue. If the government takes actions which harm economic activity, then the government's revenues drop. So a sales tax incentivizes successful economic policy, and penalizes bad policy.

Income tax does this to a degree as well, but again, it functions outside of personal choice— the only way not to pay it is to earn less money, which is hardly a desirable choice either individually or societally as a whole. (And that's a whole other ball of wax…)

For the record, I advocate either a universal flat rate income tax OR a sales tax structure that excludes life necessities (food, medicine, shelter, basic clothing). But not both at the same time. An income tax on top of a sales tax is economically a poor choice, as the one harms the other.

And property taxes should be tossed out alongside bad ideas like slavery and communism.

And capital gains tax is stupid. Investment returns should not be taxed; it disincentives investment (and property sale, too).

I agree that sales tax is the most equitable. It universally taxes based on rate of consumption. Generally, those that earn more consume more. After all, the point of money is to get stuff (I include experiences as "stuff" since (I will say almost) almost everywhere that has sales tax, taxes buying an experience.)

Sales tax also encourages investment, including "saving" (i.e. at a bank with a minimal return). Without income or capital gains tax, it encourages them more. More valuable than saving and earning capital gains IMHO is the frame of mind to value the future more than immediate gratification.

If the government takes actions which harm economic activity, then the government's revenues drop. So a sales tax incentivizes successful economic policy, and penalizes bad policy.

This assumes that the government is incentivized by growing, or at least maintaining size. For the last 30 years of my civil service (including active duty military service), my first thought every day has been "How do I put myself out of business today?"

And there's also the flip side where bad policy decreases spending, which decreases government revenue, which decreases the government's ability take action to fix things.

Almost all complex systems (like taxation) have sub-optimal parts. Additionally, for social systems poverty means lack of resources, and adapting to even a beneficial change requires resources (that the poor don't have). So any solution will have bad parts. I think solutioning is mostly about is clearly understanding what sucks about your preferred solution and either accepting it or compensating (like your example of exempting necessaries from sales tax).

Sales taxes are not equitable. Elon Musk will pay the same tax on a bottle of milk that you do.

Income taxes can be targeted and adjusted so the poor pay proportionately less. There is a minimum income you need, and an income for which you are just spending to show you are rich.

Unfair? No. Which has the most effect on Walmart.; thr CEO not being there, or the equivalent cost in checkout operators?

You don't think taxes are fair?
So how do you fund the fire service, the police, roads, education? Do the poor just not get these?

Property taxes are nothing less than paying rent to the taxing authority (city, county) for the privilege of owning a house. (Residentially speaking, which defines most of us.) It's mostly grossly unfair, esp. for seniors and those on fixed income. We have to pay real dollars every year on a hypothetical "market value" arbitrarily set that only comes into play if we SELL our homes and go to … where, exactly?

It's especially theft if you can't pay your taxes and you have to sell or they take possession of your house.

Wolfhag