Jump to content

Talk:Property tax: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
re submitting because it doesnt apear in the correct lay out
Line 8: Line 8:
*That property ownership is subject to certain conditions imposed by government does not mean that the owner is merely renting from the government. In the same way that one cannot walk down the street without subjecting himself to the powers of the police, one cannot own property unconditionally, at least not in an industrialized nation. And just as you wouldn't say that you are merely borrowing from the government your freedom to walk the street, neither is it correct to say that you are merely renting your property from the government.--[[User:Leftymn|Leftymn]] 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*That property ownership is subject to certain conditions imposed by government does not mean that the owner is merely renting from the government. In the same way that one cannot walk down the street without subjecting himself to the powers of the police, one cannot own property unconditionally, at least not in an industrialized nation. And just as you wouldn't say that you are merely borrowing from the government your freedom to walk the street, neither is it correct to say that you are merely renting your property from the government.--[[User:Leftymn|Leftymn]] 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Because the State has chosen, property tax, the condition that prevents the people from owning their homes the state is in fact demanding the logical equivalent of rent. It is also clear that if the government taxed our freedom like they do our property no one would be legally walking down the street unless they paid their freedom tax.
Because the State has chosen, property tax, the condition that prevents the people from owning their homes the state is in fact demanding the logical equivalent of rent. It is also clear that if the government taxed our freedom like they do our property no one would be legally walking down the street unless they paid their freedom tax.
Unless you believe the police are God you are no more subject to their power than you are to the wishes of your mother or the poisonous snake in the woods, before you can you walk down the street. Governments don’t give people their freedom; God does, and at their very best governments can only assist in protecting it. A good government would guarantee the right of the people to acquire liberty. Our government, with property tax, is denying the people their right to acquire liberty, and stolen the ownership of their homes.
Unless you believe the police are God you are no more subject to their power than you are to the wishes of your mother or the poisonous snake in the woods, before you can you walk down the street. Governments don’t give people their freedom; God does, and at their very best governments can only assist in protecting it. A good government would guarantee the right of the people to acquire liberty. Our government, with property tax, is denying the people their right to acquire liberty, and stolen the ownership of their homes.

Revision as of 13:49, 31 January 2009

WikiProject iconTaxation Start‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

paying Taxes without money

Say someone wants to withdraw themselves from the civil economy of the United States (or any other country), how do they pay taxes, income (assuming you can define their subsistance such as hunting and gathering as income) taxes and property taxes. My point is how can someone pay taxes without money. The article does not address in what way or which medium is necesary to the payment of taxes to the state, and the posibilities of becomeing exempt. For instance what would you have to do to be perfectly exempt? Own nothing and live nowhere? In which case you would starve. You have to have land to grow food to feed your family but as long as you don't sell any of it, do you have to be taxed? If you have no money then how do you pay the taxes on your property? If you don't pay you get your land posesed, right? Then you starve. So you are basicaly forced into buisiness. Right? So this is an excelent example of how you do not really own the land. You rent it from the government and if you don't make the appropriet improvments, they will give it to someone who will.

Just asking?

  • That property ownership is subject to certain conditions imposed by government does not mean that the owner is merely renting from the government. In the same way that one cannot walk down the street without subjecting himself to the powers of the police, one cannot own property unconditionally, at least not in an industrialized nation. And just as you wouldn't say that you are merely borrowing from the government your freedom to walk the street, neither is it correct to say that you are merely renting your property from the government.--Leftymn 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Because the State has chosen, property tax, the condition that prevents the people from owning their homes the state is in fact demanding the logical equivalent of rent.  It is also clear that if the government taxed our freedom like they do our property no one would be legally walking down the street unless they paid their freedom tax. 

Unless you believe the police are God you are no more subject to their power than you are to the wishes of your mother or the poisonous snake in the woods, before you can you walk down the street. Governments don’t give people their freedom; God does, and at their very best governments can only assist in protecting it. A good government would guarantee the right of the people to acquire liberty. Our government, with property tax, is denying the people their right to acquire liberty, and stolen the ownership of their homes.

For society to evolve it must move in the direction of individual freedom and liberty. You would think that in a modern industrial society governments would have done away with the medieval practice of throwing people out of their homes if they are unable to pay the authorities. The fact that governments still practice this primitive, inhumane and immoral method of collecting revenue shows how incapable they are of evolving.

Tomas Real (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You need food, water, and shelter to live. Not money. Now if someone wishes to withdraw from the civil economy and give up the use of money, how do they pay taxes? Do they have to? Is it legal to not participate in the economy of any country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any conditions under which one can become exempt from paying property tax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just replying-As for paying taxes without money, most places used to do this, but do not allow it anymore, which is why they invented money to begin with-they didn't like all the storage space used for storing the grain, cattle, etc. that that king/government took in as taxes. ...However, under US law, from my understanding, taxes are only payable on income if you earn more than a set amount and on barter, only if you gain in the dealings. If you gain nothing in your deal, then taxes are not due-generally.

There are a few places one can go to be relieved of property taxes, presumably, forever. Most of Alaska does not have property taxes, though all the major inhabited areas do. I haven't been able to find any other places without property tax, though. I understand some countries do not have any taxes at all, though I don't know which countries those are.

And, yes, it is perfectly legal to withdraw from the economy, though it may be unpleasant in most places. The process of how to do it is a different matter. I've been investigating this for some time and I am convinced that it can be done and I plan to do it in the near future.

Good luck to you.

Jacktheploughboy (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allodial title is an inalienable title to property, and thus the property cannot be taxed (or transferred). This was common in feudal states, where lords had significant political rights so as to be effectively immune to taxation by the sovereign. Almost everywhere in representative governments and area where rule-of-law is strong don't allow allodial title, as it inherently disrupts the authority of the sovereign government to tax. Allodial titles are per se legal in the United States, and exist in many states in theory, but in practice don't exist in almost any states (Nevada and Texas have quasi-allodial title). Typically, to change a "fee simple" title to an allodial title requires the owner to pay taxes on the land ad infinitum. TANSTAAFL, and if you want land you never have to pay taxes on, the only way to get that is to pay all the future taxes on it first. Either that or be a feudal lord. You can get a similar title by being an Indian tribe I think.
On the other hand, it's not hard to find extremely low property taxes in the South. Mississippi usually has insanely low taxes, many localities levying less than 2 mill. And some localities may allow you to have back taxes accrue as a lien against the property and will collect those taxes by sale of the property when you die (which isn't technically YOU paying the tax, but rather your estate).
Since most property taxes are levied by local government, its completely possible to have local government to exempt one from property taxes, it you can convince the local legislature to give up your money and the image of fairness. 164.67.237.80 (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the greatest lie ever told is the American Dream of home ownership as property tax clearly prohibits ownership making it impossible to ever become free from debt. Property tax is the evolution of serfdom where kings and lords have been replaced by rulers of the State. This medieval extortion, collected on unrealized capital gains, makes the peoples homes into investments of the State. Property tax forces the people into government servitude in order to keep their homes. Clearly as in the past, modern day serfdom is intended to prevent the people from ever acquiring liberty. The only difference between medieval serfdom and property tax is that the people must pay with government currency. Gone are the good old days when you could pay with chickens, some other farm product or manual labor. Tomas Real (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Property Tax is Rent to the State

Under any system of property tax the "owner" is deemed to be the State and the entity in possession of the property merely the renter thereof.

PCE 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this statement true? What does it even mean? In my experience property is assessed to the owner, who is most certainly not the state.--67.137.235.187 04:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent, anonymous, editor removed an external reference on the grounds that it was "an insipid article by a pro-tax individual". I haven't immediately restored it, because being insipid would be good grounds for removing it (and I don't know the literature well enough to tell whether that charge is true); it is also somewhat out of date (originally published 1972). But being pro-tax would not be grounds for removing it; we ought to have a balance of pro- and anti- references. So far as I can tell it was the only reference we had that discussed the distributional effect of property tax. Does anyone know a better reference for this issue - ideally a balanced and/or review paper? If not, then I think the deleted reference should go back. seglea 5 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Of course property tax is not "rent to the state", it is each property owners fair share of the funds/budget it takes to run local gov't and state services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.124.41 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That the state retains ownership of everybody's property is an undeniable fact. That homesteaders are not homeowners and that they are just paying rent to the state is an undeniable fact. The owner is the one with the right to acquire possession of property when the renter fails to make payment. That the state has this right because of property tax is obvious.

If you had no idea it was the government demanding payment and not a landlord the only difference you would be able to discern from conventional rent would be the terms of your rental agreement. All the material facts that determine who is the owner and what is a renter remain the same. All arguments which try to prove that property tax is not the logical equivalent of rent are based on the justification of the tax and are irrational from the prospective of what is ownership and what is a renter.

If we are to believe that the state is not the owner charging homesteaders rent we would have to conclude that an owner is some one who has to make payment to someone else or lose possession of their property. This is absurd and a complete contradiction of what is ownership.

Our government needs to quit lying to the people and just come out and admit they are unwilling to let the people own their homes.


Written by Tomas Real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.120.24 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t tax ownership any more than you can make the earth flat by religious decree. What one does when they claim to tax ownership is make ownership into that which it is not. Redefining ownership from that which gives you freedom from debt to that which puts you in eternal debt is ludicrous. The so called tax on ownership is really a tax on possession and when you tax the possession of property you are denying its ownership. Every rational person in the world understands this and that our so called “authorities” are incapable of seeing this makes them into members of yet another “flat earth society”. Taken from the book “If we free the slaves who will pick the cotton” written by Tomas Real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas Real (talkcontribs) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

council tax

Any tax on the possession or ownership of property is a type of property tax.

Renters are owners of an interest in a piece of property. Their ownership is limited by time though.

UK council tax

Does Council Tax count as a property tax? It replaced the poll tax and you pay more the more your property is worth. Secretlondon 23:22, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting point. But I don't think it can be a property tax, because you pay it whether you own the property or not. It is really a kind of poll tax (but couldn't be called one for political reasons, of course). The fact that it charges you more for living in a bigger house can be seen as an attempt to be a progressive tax, on the assumption that size/value of house will be correlated with income. seglea 01:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The tax is (a) per (private) property, not per person; (b) paid by the owner of the property if the property is unoccupied, although it's paid by the occupant if it is. I would argue that (a) here makes it a property tax rather than anything else; who pays it seems less relevant to me, and the payee still has an attachment to the property either way round.

UK business rates may also count as a property tax, but I'm not up on the details.

The UK's council tax system is ad valorem of a form. From memory - this needs verification and a reference - the UK bands houses by value into bands A-G, where the bands are delimited by the property value as assessed at a certain point in time (1980?) and compared against thresholds. Property improvement (il.e. new building) can affect the banding, I assume they go with notional value.

The rate of tax is modified, with discounts on single occupancy, occupancy entirely by unemployed people or students, no occupancy.

Thus it is a function of property value, but not solely of property value, and the relationship is by no means linear.

Because the selected point in time was one of high property value, the low bands are relatively underpopulated in expensive parts of the country, reducing the distinction between the tax on the average and most expensive properties in those areas.

Anyway, I came to this article looking for something else, and I don't know enough to fill the section in, but I'm hoping that it will be considered for inclusion.

Removed text

Local municipalities have increasingly required minimum lot sizes to limit the supply of housing. This forces up the housing prices in an area, keeping poorer people out. Part of the reasoning behind this is that poorer people tend to use more government services.

Where is this supposedly happening? This sounds like someone's political gripe. Some references and some context would be useful if anyone thinks it should be included in the article. -- Beland 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans case study

I removed the claim that New Orleans was the second-largest city in the U.S. before the Civil War. In 1860, New York, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Boston, and Baltimore were all larger. In 1850, the position of New Orleans was the same except it was bigger than Brooklyn. [1] [2] This brings into question the accuracy of the rest of the New Orleans case study. -- Beland 16:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

States And Countries With No Property Tax

What countries have no property tax? And what states within federations have no property tax? Zachorious 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's been over a year since the above question was posted. I would love to see an answer to this.

Is there really no place on the face of this planet where you can actually own real estate? As opposed to just renting it from the local government? (paying money to keep something IS RENTING IMO) Seems a bit unfair that you can't just live on your land without earning money to pay some big strong guy that supposedly knows better than you to let you be. I have done my share of web searching but cannot find ANY place whatsoever with no property taxes.

Now, I understand that municipalities generally rely upon property tax, the most reliable of all taxes (it's pretty hard to hide your property) to fund police and emergency services and other "necessary" functions of gov't, but why can't one sign an agreement to forfeit these services in return for less or no property tax, effectively becoming a small self-contained, self policed country with a controlled border? I don't have AS much of a problem with income, sales taxes etc., but forcing people to either contribute to the economy or lose their property equals slavery, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just move all the anti-tax activists to a county where they can overwhelm the local elections and abolish their county and municipal taxes? It'd be tricky to maintain law and order in that town though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.80 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you don't pay property taxes in the Cayman Islands. Cooltobekind (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., all states authorize local governments to levy a property tax. In Alaska, it is optional for municipalities, and not all municipalities have opted in. Similarly, in Maine, all municipalities can levy a property tax, but not all of the state is within a municipality. Outside of the municipal areas, the state implements the property tax. Nya gwu (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places that use personal property tax in the US

http://evans-legal.com/dan/papptax.html

We really should include some of this information in here. I don't know if North Carolina and Pennsylvania are the only two states that do/have done this, but it should be researched. I think this should could probably be made into a separate article or perhaps even combined with the [wealth tax] page.

Jesse Crouch (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least part of the answer to that question. I know all of the states' provisions for taxing mobile homes, motor vehicles, inventory, and machinery and equipment. New page? Nya gwu (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]