Property tax, the Original Income tax?

[ladyattis]

I think there needs to be a Property Tax Revolt.  Kat has started it in Keene.   

Yep, I see no logic in allowing a government to have a permanent rental fee on land it does not service nor maintain.

-- Bridget

But it does service the land.  It prevents the land from being taken over by the evil Mexicans or Frogs.

Frogs can take over stuff? I thought the last time we had a war with them we sunk about 80 of their vessels with two of ours. 

Oh, as for the protection a government brings, that should be unified under an excise fee of the title rather than a universal property tax for two good reasons.

1. A tax provides a stable source of income for the government to grow.

Now that looks all nice and dandy on paper, but I think it's clear that every time a government has institute a tax to increase its steady income, its authority has been overstepped each and every time. Excises such as customs fees, legal paper fees, and etc, are all easily stable incomes, just not the income a large government wants.

2. A stable income[and even increasing flow of] income for the government would allow it to continue to expand in areas not under its deligation.

This is where it gets quite underhanded. You ever wonder where in the world the government gets time enough to make those propaganda adverts? They can do it by using any excess money from their tax collections to hire PR firms to do Ad campaigns, everything from trying to get kids to stay in school[which I support, just not through the government for various reasons] to trying to get citizens to support a new bill or law to expand the government's power. Often the latter is more funded than the former.

Also, such a stable income allows a government to retain a larger than necessary police force[that includes the armed forces] to the levels needed for invasion or quelling rebellion. Why does a government need that if it's good and just? Are the politicians afraid of an international bogey man or maybe they're scared of something closer to home, which is what I suspect.


These are the reasons why direct taxes are not a really practical tool since they historically ensure that a governmental structure grows out of its bounds like a stink weed. Of course the only way it can be hampered and controlled is by active participation of the populous, and maybe a bit of things the politicians would deem 'illegal.' 

-- Bridget

[tracysaboe]

Fees for use of certain things. Like the excise fees on legal forms. These sorts of excises are not impounded on everyone since they're applied only to specific functions of government. That would literally cut down more than half of the government's purpose down to the initial notions of a uniform legal structure.

-- Bridget

then a title for land could be looked at as an excise tax.

I would agree that this could be seen as an excise tax if we're talking about a one-time fee.

I don't have a problem with fees for service, as long as the government isn't in services that the market is or should be providing. (anarcho-capitalists feel free to jump in here  )

well you have to understand what the title is for - right?

the title is for exclusive use of an area backed by the state force.

so the tax is therefore time-based since the services rendered are.

Title is nothing but a documentation that one person owns the land and others can't homestead it since now somebody else has claimed it. Competing Title companies could perform this function better then the government could. In fact it would be more difficult for people to steal your land if you had it documented with three or 4 different title companies then just one monopoly government record company.

Tracy

[BillG]

Title is nothing but a documentation that one person owns the land and others can't homestead it since now somebody else has claimed it. Competing Title companies could perform this function better then the government could

fine...the operative question then is who is going to back it up with force?

and MOST importantly what to do about the involuntary, indirect "income tax" imposed on those being excluded by said force (private or government) which violates their labor-based property rights?

[Pat McCotter]

Who rewound the Victrola?!?!?!?

[Caleb]

So my basic question goes back to this:  Is it, in anyone else's opinion, feasible to replace taxation with government run businesses competing in the free market (NOT, to be clear, government businesses operating on a monopoly.)  The profits could be used to run state government (such as building roads, putting up stoplights, holding trials for people accused of crimes, etc.)  I've had some success in encouraging state reps to look at casino income as a replacement for taxation.

Caleb

[Ron Helwig]

So my basic question goes back to this:  Is it, in anyone else's opinion, feasible to replace taxation with government run businesses competing in the free market (NOT, to be clear, government businesses operating on a monopoly.)  The profits could be used to run state government (such as building roads, putting up stoplights, holding trials for people accused of crimes, etc.)  I've had some success in encouraging state reps to look at casino income as a replacement for taxation.

Caleb

I just moved from a community (Shakopee MN) that has an Indian casino. There's lots of opportunity for corruption in a setup like that. Lots of contention between the "native community" and "the city".

I think allowing the government to run businesses is just asking for trouble. It is an unnecessary intervention into the market.

Don't forget that even without the monopoly factor, any government run business will have other inherent advantages, like sovereign immunity from lawsuits, the perception of legitimacy, etc.

[Incrementalist]

So my basic question goes back to this:  Is it, in anyone else's opinion, feasible to replace taxation with government run businesses competing in the free market (NOT, to be clear, government businesses operating on a monopoly.)  The profits could be used to run state government (such as building roads, putting up stoplights, holding trials for people accused of crimes, etc.)  I've had some success in encouraging state reps to look at casino income as a replacement for taxation.

Caleb

We may not agree with all the services provided by the government, but one of the basest services a government provides, one that even many purist libertarians agree it should provide, is the protection of property.  A property tax serves best as a user fee for this arrangement.  It's not a perfect arrangement, but it's better than an income tax, and I would endorse somebody who wanted to replace one with the other, even if my penultimate ideal is neither.  My penultimate ideal is not politically relevant, and believing it is will only help me go to the grave with an income tax.

Oh, and casino income collection is still a tax.