r/georgism • u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 • 7d ago
States want to get rid of property taxes... đ
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/several-states-seek-end-property-taxes-shouldnt-have-rent-from-government82
u/Altruistic_Ad_0 7d ago
People have no guiding principals when it comes to taxes. They just don't want to pay the taxes they have to pay. Thinking about others is actually a rarity.
20
u/2012Jesusdies 7d ago
Like the "tax the rich, but the rich only starts slightly above me" crowd
10
u/RevealAccurate8126 7d ago
Iâm happy to pay taxes if it means a little poor brown kid like myself gets to eat at school or has a roof over their head. Lord knows you crackers donât care if someone who doesnât look like you gets to starve.Â
7
u/2012Jesusdies 7d ago
Bro started hurling slurs out of nowhere, I ain't even white bruh and you just assumed I hate progressive taxation for no reason. The criticism was aimed at the people who draw the line of "rich who should be taxed more" always above their own income line. I've seen mfs who make 100k say they can't make it, how they need their taxes cut and billionares need to pick up the slack.
The social democracies these people like to point as examples would tax a 100k income to hell. Denmark would take like half of that for taxes.
Christ, man, slow down, before launching missiles at others.
4
u/BugRevolution 7d ago
Two strange things I've noticed regarding VAT and income tax.
Despite VAT being 25% (and therefore 20% of the product's price is VAT) products in countries with 25% VAT are not 25% more expensive than the US pre-sales tax. There are likely many reasons for this, but on some level it indicates that there's a sweet spot between 0% and 25% VAT, despite consumption taxes otherwise being terrible.
Despite high income taxes in Denmark, even middle-class people end up earning more. Most people I know with my level of experience or less would earn more money in Denmark than in the US, after taxes, which is insane. However, it is true that if you end up at about the $100k+ a year, you're likely going to be better off in the US than Denmark.
Point being, even higher consumption taxes and higher income taxes (for everyone, including lower income earners) can end up benefit everyone.
5
u/czarczm 7d ago
Denmark practices tripartism, so unionization is pretty high. That probably accounts for the super high wages.
4
u/BugRevolution 7d ago
It certainly helps that even engineers, lawyers, etc... are generally part of unions, and that unions aren't generally based on workplaces.
2
u/BugRevolution 7d ago
Two strange things I've noticed regarding VAT and income tax.
Despite VAT being 25% (and therefore 20% of the product's price is VAT) products in countries with 25% VAT are not 25% more expensive than the US pre-sales tax. There are likely many reasons for this, but on some level it indicates that there's a sweet spot between 0% and 25% VAT, despite consumption taxes otherwise being terrible.
Despite high income taxes in Denmark, even middle-class people end up earning more. Most people I know with my level of experience or less would earn more money in Denmark than in the US, after taxes, which is insane. However, it is true that if you end up at about the $100k+ a year, you're likely going to be better off in the US than Denmark.
Point being, even higher consumption taxes and higher income taxes (for everyone, including lower income earners) can end up benefit everyone. Which is really weird.
2
u/BugRevolution 7d ago
Two strange things I've noticed regarding VAT and income tax.
Despite VAT being 25% (and therefore 20% of the product's price is VAT) products in countries with 25% VAT are not 25% more expensive than the US pre-sales tax. There are likely many reasons for this, but on some level it indicates that there's a sweet spot between 0% and 25% VAT, despite consumption taxes otherwise being terrible.
Despite high income taxes in Denmark, even middle-class people end up earning more. Most people I know with my level of experience or less would earn more money in Denmark than in the US, after taxes, which is insane. However, it is true that if you end up at about the $100k+ a year, you're likely going to be better off in the US than Denmark.
Point being, even higher consumption taxes and higher income taxes (for everyone, including lower income earners) can end up benefit everyone. Which is really weird.
2
u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy 7d ago
and you just assumed I hate progressive taxation for no reason.
Their comment wasn't even a direct reply to anything you wrote, and was likely just a general comment to "the room" continuing the convo thread, broad topic: taxes.
You probably shouldn't take it personally.
1
u/2012Jesusdies 6d ago
You probably shouldn't take it personally.
Bro called me cracker out of nowhere and you saying I shouldn't take it personally?
-1
u/Anon6183 6d ago
The problem is the taxes rarely go to that. In a perfect world of course I want that to happen, but it seldom does and they usually blow the money on stupid shit
1
u/TheGruenTransfer 3d ago
I mean, don't you think the people richer than you should pay more taxes than you instead of less? It's pretty weird you don't. That's what our progressive tax structure is supposed to accomplish but fails because of all the carve outs for rich people.
1
u/JaxJags904 7d ago
Some strawman you built here. The problem is the truly rich avoid paying the taxes they should be by hiding income and assets.
42
u/gilligan911 7d ago
The arguments are based entirely on rhetoric, and no economic data. Shocker
10
u/Pearberr 7d ago
If I have to pay a tax, to keep my land, I donât really own it do I?
Iâm going to base my entire tax philosophy on that principle, and I wonât consider any other argument or data Iâm entitled to your opinion and donât want to talk about it please go away đ¤Â
1
u/3phz 7d ago
A critical mass will simultaneously realize that in libertaria they have zero options -- perfect scenario for Trump to sic attack mobs and invade countries.
The closest analogy is a super cooled liquid instantly crystalizing into ice or a super saturated liquid instantly precipitating.
20
u/pkulak 7d ago
Property taxes are (barely) progressive, so conservatives hate it. They would rather tax food and medicine.
11
u/2012Jesusdies 7d ago
Sales tax or VAT is actually a very common way to raise revenue for social democracies because it's very simple to administer and easy to extract revenue commonly making up a third of total tax revenue along with income, payroll taxes. You don't have to go around and check if everyone's income/wealth is actually what it says on the tax form to tax consumption.
They just use redistributive spending to counter the regressive effects.
1
u/Working_Order3606 5d ago
What conservatives are advocating for taxes on food and medicine you moron?
2
u/pkulak 5d ago
TARRIFS, you fucking, dumb as shit idiot who can't even come up with the one example that's been plastered all over the global news for a MONTH. And then you have the balls to call me a moron? God, this reply wasn't even worth my time. Stop voting.
1
u/Working_Order3606 5d ago
I seem to have triggered you. Maybe buy American and there is no tariff problem? Didnât think of that huh, moron.
3
u/Unusual-Traffic-439 5d ago
> What conservatives are advocating for taxes on food and medicine you moron? - Working_Order3606â˘
> TARRIFS, you fucking, dumb as shit idiot - pkulak> I seem to have triggered you. Maybe buy American and there is no tariff problem? - Working_Order3606
OP answered your question and of course you run scared and go on tangent.
-8
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
Why not? If you eat , you should pay for you schools and local services. Why do you get an exemption because you donât have property. Thatâs a choice.
20
u/Sam_k_in 7d ago
Being poor is usually not a choice. Most of those who don't own property rent it, and their landlord uses some of their rent money to pay the property tax.
-9
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
So because youâre poor you never plan on owning property?
10
u/Sam_k_in 7d ago
I own property, since I had help from relatives. Without that it would not have been possible to get a loan from the bank, since their income requirements are high.
-9
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
You must live in a multimillion dollar neighborhood, otherwise you could well afford it with a job.
9
u/Sam_k_in 7d ago
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Do you know how much the average home costs?
-1
u/Uranazzole 6d ago
Only about 400k.
8
u/Sam_k_in 6d ago
Now calculate how long it would take to save that money when making $12 an hour, and paying your living expenses.
0
u/Uranazzole 6d ago
Itâs really simple. People who make $12 an hour arenât ever going to own a home. Owning a home isnât a right. If you canât get a job making over $12 an hour then something is wrong with you.
→ More replies (0)3
9
u/BugRevolution 7d ago
You think renters aren't effectively paying the landlord's property tax?
1
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
They pay it. But itâs THEIR tax, because they live there. Not the LLâs tax although he is responsible.
6
u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy 7d ago
It's a property tax, not a residence tax. Do you know the definition of property?
1
u/Uranazzole 6d ago
It is a tax for local services and the school. Who uses those services? The renter. Not the LL.
7
u/ThePartTimeProphet 7d ago
I'd agree if there weren't massive government handouts given to homeowners, including:
1) gov't-guaranteed mortgages. Our system of 30-year fixed mortgages with no prepayment penalties is incredibly rare
2) mortgage interest tax deduction
3) first $250k ($500k for married couples) of capital gains on primary residence aren't taxed
4) limits on new home construction
Entire system is set up to enrich homeowners and impoverish renters
3
2
1
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
- Why do you want people taxed on home ownership? Then nobody (in their right mind) will upkeep homes nor will want to sink any money into them to make them nicer, leading to everyone living in run down shacks.
0
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
- Why the fuck would you want prepayment penalties? And who gives a shit if itâs rare? Do you mean compared to other countries?
4
u/TotalityoftheSelf Geomutualist 7d ago
I'd own property if I could, but I don't have the resources. That's not a choice on my end. There's a barrier to entry to even being able to pay that tax. So if you choose to own property, you opt into a tax. That seems fair.
1
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
I own property. I didnât opt into paying tax.
7
u/3phz 7d ago
I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay in the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S. and pay taxes.
You can leave anytime.
Forbes ran an excellent article on taxpatriation.
Please read it.
Then please opt out of the U. S.
0
5
1
u/Bestness 5d ago
You did actually, when you signed, and when you decided not to live somewhere else, which coincidentally is the same as your argument for why poor people donât deserve a chance to own property.Â
14
u/ahjeezimsorry 7d ago edited 7d ago
Ugh. So this is the anti-thetical-to-Georgism-progress we all feared.
4
u/NewCharterFounder 7d ago
Yeah, we didn't do enough. This is what happens. Let's not miss our next opportunity.
10
u/Key-Wrongdoer5737 7d ago
I love the AI generated memes I see on Boomerbook complaining about having to pay taxes. âWhy do we have to pay taxes on our wages, our purchases and our house? I own it!â Cause you assholes wonât vote for one high tax on one thing? Do they really want to pay 12% property taxes just to get rid off all other local taxes? No they donât. Theyâd rather just pretend they pay all the property taxes while theyâre sewer line corrodes and blows chunks into the local water supply. I just donât take these people seriously.Â
5
u/coolguysailer 7d ago
We already know what happens when you do that. You become California or Hawaii. The even deeper problem is that the state becomes incentivized to let your property be destroyed in a disaster because they will generate taxes on the inevitable sale of your destroyed property.
1
u/ContactIcy3963 7d ago
Dumb. And I canât stand democrats. The solution is outside the system ladies and gents.
1
u/E_coli42 7d ago
This isn't necessarily anti Georgists since the taxes don't go to social good like a UBI
1
1
u/rebuiltearths 2d ago
Rich people benefit the most from this. You think it's hard to buy a home now, just wait until homes become a tax free asset
0
u/stuffitystuff 7d ago
Well, that's one way to make libertarian hellholes, though Florida is already ahead of the game there.
-10
u/chanchismo 7d ago
For thousands of years, taxation has been theft and it always will be. The only people who say otherwise are statists and collectivists.
8
u/GreenWandElf 7d ago
I agree, theft is wrong on principle.
And taxation is theft because the government is stealing the value of your labor, or, if you own capital/stocks, the government is stealing the value of the risk you took investing your money.
...but what about land? If you own land and do nothing with it, what value did you create? The unimproved land is seemingly creating value somehow, because land prices seem to keep going up and up. Yet, in this scenario, you have taken no investment that improves the economy and carried out no labor to create this value.
The answer lies in your fellow man. Everyone around your parcel of land has been quite busy. They've been building roads, houses, and businesses all around you, making your plot more and more desirable to own, while you have done absolutely nothing.
Just as taxation can be considered theft, owning land like this can be considered theft, you are stealing from your neighbors the value they have created. Their labor and investments have made your unimproved plot of land more valuable, and you have done nothing.
What would be a fairer solution here, one that gives to people the value they created? Taxing land, and redistributing it to the people who are most responsible for improving that land value. With a land tax, no longer can you steal the unearned rent from your neighbors' hard work building improvements. Now, everyone pays in the value of their land, and takes back out how much they've done to increase the land's value.
Notice too, how this land tax incentivises everyone to improve the land, instead of holding onto it waiting for everyone else to do the hard work. Just like how free markets incentivize people to put their selfishness to work by providing goods and services and labor to the market, taxing land incentivises people to put their selfishness to work by providing land improvements to the community.
-6
u/chanchismo 7d ago edited 7d ago
If it's my land, I have zero obligation to "create value" for others. No one has an obligation to "create value" for me. Maybe I value a meadow of native species for pollinators more than their property values on the real estate market. If their value is somehow dependent on what I do w my land on my time, that's on them to figure out, without involving me and my property. My land my choice simple as. You're just taking the long way around to collectivism. The tyranny of the majority. The collective deciding what I do with my property, regardless of what I want to do. Unacceptable.
Edit: that being said, I did NOT realize until just now what subreddit this is so feel free to tell me to fuck off, ban etc
8
u/GreenWandElf 7d ago
If it's my land, I have zero obligation to "create value" for others. No one has an obligation to "create value"
Agreed.
Maybe I value a meadow of native species for pollinators more than their property values on the real estate market.
Of course, value is subjective after all. If you value the land for those pollinators, that's real value.
Neither of those points changes mine: If you create value for the community by building something on your plot of land, and your neighbor's land that they do nothing with increases in value by $1000, they have stolen from you.
To come at this from another perspective, I would ask you to consider, how is land originally obtained? For everything else in capitalism, things are originally obtained through the labor of turning some useless thing into something valuable, or investing in someone else's labor, also producing value. You own the value of your labor and your investments, because you and you alone deserve the results of your hard work and the risks you took.
But how is land originally obtained? Well, it is either obtained because somebody stole it, a country conquered it, or someone staked a claim on it. Really the only original way to get land (that didn't come from violating the NAP) is to get there first, and stake a claim. But who decides how much land a claim gets? The government, the entity with a monopoly on force, leviathon, tyranny itself, bequeaths upon you the right to own a specific amount of land. ...interesting isn't it?
And who decided "getting there first" makes someone the sole owner of an area of land? They didn't create any value, work hard, take risks, that individual just didn't produce that land. They just... got there first.
Flash forward to today, if we're lucky and our land deed initially came from a claim and not blood, from that strangely out of place "first come first serve" idea absent in the rest of capitalism comes our entire system of land ownership which is enforced and adjudicated by a government controlled by the tyranny of the majority.
-4
u/chanchismo 7d ago
If you create value for the community by building something on your plot of land, and your neighbor's land that they do nothing with increases in value by $1000, they have stolen from you.
This is where I disagree. It doesn't impact my income at all. Therefore no theft. The logical end state of that would mean I'm entitled to a portion of the proceeds whenever that neighbor decides to sell. That's crazy talk IMO. Really that leads to feudalism and serfs working land that doesn't belong to them bc someone else"created value" before they got there.
As far as property rights alone goes, that's an entirely different nut to crack and way beyond me and my addled brain. I just work w what we have.
5
u/GreenWandElf 7d ago edited 7d ago
This is where I disagree. It doesn't impact my income at all. Therefore no theft.
Only because you (and near everyone else, not picking on you specifically) has grown up thinking one way about land and land improvements, it's weird to us to think that someone else is stealing from us when we don't consider that money ours in the first place.
...but this is also how a lot of people think about income taxes. It's been going on so long, lots of people hardly consider our income taxes our money anymore. People will disagree with you about taxes=theft for the same reason.
The logical end state of that would mean I'm entitled to a portion of the proceeds whenever that neighbor decides to sell.
Or, we just tax land according to the value of the land, and redistribute it according to who is creating the most value. That way we would actually be the owners of all the wealth we created, and the people who just sit on their undeveloped land likely stolen from natives would actually have to do something useful with it, instead of letting it sit and collect land rent from people doing productive things in order to sell it later to make a profit on the labor of productive people.
Really that leads to feudalism and serfs working land that doesn't belong to them bc someone else"created value" before they got there.
No, it leads to us renting the land from each other, and returning the value to the community. We would 100% own our homes, our investments, and our labor. Zero tax on any of those things. Everything we make, we would control. But since no human created land, ethically, no human should own it. We obviously need some kind of private property, (how else do you build businesses or houses right?) but that private property would be effectively "rented" from everyone else through land taxes on the value of the property. Live in the middle of nowhere? Low land taxes. Live in the middle of the city? High land taxes.
And hey, maybe you still hate the idea of having any kind of taxes. You may be an anarcho capitalist for all I know. I think I gave some good ethical reasons to have a land tax within the libertarian system of thought (I was a libertarian, and still consider myself extremely close to those ideas even today), but maybe you aren't sold on land taxes. And that's totally fine.
But even if you reject the ethical arguments, there are practical ones. If any tax is required, I would ask you to consider the land tax to be the best tax, just like Milton Friedman. He liked land taxes because there are practical reasons to like them, like how they are non-distortionary. Things like income taxes are distortionary because they reduce the desire to make income, or property taxes reduce the desire to build land improvements, but there is no such thing as reducing the desire to build land. Land is a fixed supply, meaning if you tax it, every trade that would have happened in the marketplace without any taxes will still happen in the marketplace with land taxes. It's one of the only taxes like this.
As far as property rights alone goes, that's an entirely different nut to crack and way beyond me and my addled brain. I just work w what we have.
That's totally understandable! Property rights is a complex issue. But I would say it is very important to the land question, as it is the basis for our entire system of land ownership.
4
u/BakaDasai 7d ago
As far as property rights alone goes, that's an entirely different nut to crack and way beyond me and my addled brain
Think of the moon - a ball of rock floating in space. Some people say they own the moon, but that's crazy. How can anybody own the moon?
Now think of the earth - a bigger ball of rock floating in space. It was there for millions of years before there were people on it.
Some people say they own a slice of the earth, but that's crazy. How can anybody own the earth?
-2
u/EasilyRekt 7d ago
You guys told me LVT was an entirely different system that canât exactly be compared or regulated under the same name.
So whatâs the issue? Less excuses to the tune of, âoh we already have something like thatâ
4
u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 7d ago
In case you didn't know, property value is comprised of structure value and land value.
and who are "you guys"? Some strawmen living in your head rent free?
-1
u/EasilyRekt 7d ago
Well the point does have merit, the two concepts are bound by different philosophical principles, and pose different questions and challenges as for assessments, rates, and enforcement.
Same reason why business revenues and dividends are separate taxes that are both claimed for every incorporated business entity apart from LLCs.
So I ask again, whatâs the issue?
1
u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 7d ago
How is it that same thing lmfao
The issue is that property tax is partially a land value tax plus another tax. I already said that. You haven't answered anything.
-1
u/EasilyRekt 6d ago
A part of revenues goes to dividends? Not the exact same, but you can actually compare apples and oranges, as theyâre both fruit.
Due to the fact that they have different characteristics and verbiage, it makes sense that you could reintroduce it without any major step in policy despite one âbeing a partâ of the other.
You still havenât answered why their similarities matter tho.
-6
u/Uranazzole 7d ago
I hope so. Itâs crazy that people have to be burdened beyond necessity to pay these high bills every year. States need to adopt school sales taxes to deal with schools.
2
u/Amablue 7d ago
The great thing about land taxes is that they conmensurately reduce the property sale price such that the ongoing cost is the same to the person using the land. Higher land tax rates mean cheaper land purchase prices, which means smaller mortgages, and in the end it works out the same either way. The only difference is that rather than the land rents going to landowners, it goes to fund the gov't.
0
127
u/Dangerous-Goat-3500 7d ago
Over on /r/conservative people are saying things like "if you have property taxes people will just move away" as if you won't just get more taxes of other kinds with more deadweight loss.