Are property taxes fair?

[dudalb]

Legitimizing the use of coercive force against innocent people who have harmed no one, stolen no property, and have not threatened anyone by their actions is immoral.

Collectivism ultimately relies on and depends upon the use of coercion to take the fruits of people's productive labor from them.

It is a very evil and violent philosophy.

Further, it always reduces the productive output of society, and will eventually with time return that society to the stone ages as innovation and the motivation to labor is reduced to near zero.

Anarcho Capitalists Say The Dardnest Things.....

 

[michaelsuede]

Anarcho Capitalists Say The Dardnest Things.....

It's amazing isn't it?

It's like a breath of fresh air in a world filled with dog turds.

 

[respect]

I'm not sure there's a distinction. My impression is that tariffs are a tool of diplomacy.

They are more like burning down your farms so that others cannot buy food from you to punish them.

 

[bruto]

It's amazing isn't it?

It's like a breath of fresh air in a world filled with dog turds.

Sort of like New York City before the nasty old government passed a law. Shame on them.

 

[michaelsuede]

Sort of like New York City before the nasty old government passed a law. Shame on them.

I would argue that cleaning up the air would have happened eventually anyways.

Consider that if the technology did not exist to make car emissions cleaner, New York could have passed all the laws in the world and nothing would have changed.

It was the creation of those technologies, which did not occur by government decree, that cleaned up the smog above cities - not the law itself.

What the law DID DO was make automobiles more expensive for the poor and middle class, who would have continued to use old technology until the hand-me-downs with the new clean technology became available to them on the used auto market.

 

[blutoski]

Tariffs are policy, not diplomacy.

I think you'll have to educate me on the difference. My observation is that diplomats are always talking about tariffs. They seem to use them as part of the overall relationship with other countries.

For example, in the 1990s, the US relieved Canadian businesses of some tariffs in exchange for our military's participation in the Coalition of the Willing. Some new tariffs against Canadian products are very suspicious, and probably retaliation for Canada's not participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Sounds like diplomacy to me.

 

[bruto]

I would argue that cleaning up the air would have happened eventually anyways.

Consider that if the technology did not exist to make car emissions cleaner, New York could have passed all the laws in the world and nothing would have changed.

It was the creation of those technologies, which did not occur by government decree, that cleaned up the smog above cities - not the law itself.

What the law DID DO was make automobiles more expensive for the poor and middle class, who would have continued to use old technology until the hand-me-downs with the new clean technology became available to them on the used auto market.

You utterly missed my point of course. You brought up the smell of dog turds, which is what I was talking about. It took a law to get New Yorkers to clean up after their dogs.

 

[michaelsuede]

You utterly missed my point of course. You brought up the smell of dog turds, which is what I was talking about. It took a law to get New Yorkers to clean up after their dogs.

hahahaha

yeah I agree, there needs to be a law for that.

That is tantamount to a property rights violation.

When someone craps on your lawn, they need to pick it up.

Of course, that can be dealt with in a civil court by people suing each other.

Loser pays.

 

[Francesca R]

I think you'll have to educate me on the difference. My observation is that diplomats are always talking about tariffs.

As you said--diplomats talk about tariffs, politicians are required to impose them.

Of course it is not credible to talk about tariffs if you don't actually impose them. So not talking about imposing them would be better still.

 

[JJM 777]

Collectivism ultimately relies on and depends upon the use of coercion to take the fruits of people's productive labor from them.

It is a very evil and violent philosophy.

Assuming that not redistributing wealth would lead to a less evil society? Everyone knows that some redistribution of wealth is necessary to keep the society stable at all, so the poorest classes will not go rioting or stealing more than the society can peacefully tolerate.

Further, it always reduces the productive output of society, and will eventually with time return that society to the stone ages as innovation and the motivation to labor is reduced to near zero.

Evidence? Wait, you talk about _always_, so one example will not be enough, you need all-inclusive evidence through history.

 

[bruto]

hahahaha

yeah I agree, there needs to be a law for that.

That is tantamount to a property rights violation.

When someone craps on your lawn, they need to pick it up.

Of course, that can be dealt with in a civil court by people suing each other.

Loser pays.

Wrong again. New York is a city, where dogs are walked on the public rights of way. The problem was not one of private property.

 

[nota]

Neither is residential property.

Assessed value for property tax purposes has little to nothing to do with actual market value. It really doesn't matter what the market value is, because the bodies doing the taxing need x-amount of money regardless.

Assessed values are only useful when compared to each other, not for estimating market value.

in fact you are correct
BUT by LAW most are to be assessed at current market value
esp for commercial property
and while a house is eazy to comp with lots of sales
a huge shopping mall is not and rare to sell at all
but the difference in taxes paid can be HUGE vs true values
esp for multi-million dollar property
and major projects get breaks and exemptions for years
as part of the pre-building planning

while joe homeowner gets to pay for the big guys
as every dollar the CORPrats dodge joe gets to make up

 

[blutoski]

As you said--diplomats talk about tariffs, politicians are required to impose them.

I'm thinking that's splitting hairs.

Politicians are also required to ratify treaties, too.
But I think we all accept that treaty negotiation is a task of the diplomat.

In any case, I'll make this my final post about tariffs, as I appreciate I've ventured off topic for a property tax thread.