So I heard the other day on Free Talk Live Radio how property owners in the U.S. basically don’t own their property at all. They think they own it but when you ask them what would happen if you don’t pay property tax on the property what would happen? Obviously many would say the State would take it away from the so-called owner. If this is true, then the owner is really the State and the owner who believes he owns the property is nothing more than a renter of the property from the State. I think this is one of the most enlightening aspects of property rights that if explained to many property owners could easily spark some type of desire for the abolishment of the property tax.
I’ve been saying for years that property tax is nothing more than propety owners paying rent to the government. A lot of other people have come to the same conclusion.
Well, be careful with the word “owner” as that implies legitimacy. The state is not the real owner, but it acts like it is and it has the power to back that up.
Technically speaking, feudalism is a socio-economic system where every member of society has a rigid niche set up for them early in life (i.e. king, knight, vassal, serf, etc.). I’d say we live in, economically at least, a fascist society. Government mandated monopolies, cartels, union control, tariffs, strict regulation, etc. are all hallmarks of a fascist economy.
Property taxes are the most economic form of taxation, since the purpose of the state is, at least theoretically, to defend property. The more property you have, the more expenses the state supports to defend it. They also fall proportionately on the poor and the rich, while income and consumption taxes target the poor disproportionately.
It is much better strategically to condemn income and consumption taxes, since under a free market for security you would still have to pay to protect your property and thus property taxes would never be completely done away with.
By “dispropotionately” you don’t mean “more than otherwise” do you? Because tax expenses are passed onto the consumer.
Paying for a protection agency is not a tax, that’s paying for a service, which falls under consumption. And it’s much better to condem taxes in general.
Renters are also paying property taxes, because landlords have to figure in the cost of their property taxes in order to calculate a profitable amount to charge in rent.
So, what happens when property taxes go up but the property is rent-controlled a la NYC? =)
You’ve never read the Constitution, have you? There’s a reason why we needed an entire amendment for the income tax. I’ll give you a hint: Article I Section 9.
The taxes are paid by whoever writes the cheque to the government. Those are then factored into the costs of production. Since the rich have a lot of accumulated wealth, they are not affected by higher production costs as much as those who must produce their wealth.
I started reading the constitution when I heard about Ron Paul, but then I found out that the US CONSTITUTION doesn’t really prohibit the Government from collecting income tax.
Even if you remove the 16th ammendment which was added in 1913, the government can still collect taxes.
Article 1,Section 9 does not really prohibit the government from collecting direct taxes.
The thing is, the Constition doesn’t have to prohibit things. It is a document of enumerated powers, meaning that the only powers that the federal government has are those that are explicitly granted to it in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t say the fedgov can do something, then it can’t (without an amendment, or some creative butchering of the document (which we’ve had plenty of)).