Really well executed one page executive summary at the top of the article for anyone interested. Despite the oddity of being a gdrive link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wzGqzWHDQA4m8DIo174yqx-eYDk...
Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
31–40 of 91 posts
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think a government should be able to seize property under eminent domain if they believe that selling it to a third party to commercially develop would lead to higher tax revenue?
The government already has and does do exactly this. Is this suppose to be a gotcha? If you have very valuable property, you should pay taxes on it. Claiming that you have ownership over land on this planet is odd, you didn't create the land and governments change overtime.
Historically speaking, I am not sure if humans argued that they have created the land and therefore they should be allowed to use it. Ownership of the land and its use is, rather, simply tied to one's ability to retain it ( possession being 9/10ths of the law and all that ).
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#33Really seems to me that there should be no exemption for land tax for non profits or religious reasons. It is just far too subject to abuse, and it means that we have large churches in the middle of incredibly dense cities that pay almost nothing in taxes.
Or property taxes should be eliminated because they are subject to abuse, and instead sales tax should be the primary source of income for all governments.
Is there a term for this approach? I don’t think it’s ludicrous enough to be flagged and buried at least…
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#34>property taxes
Call it what it is, a perpetual rent.
There's nothing funnier than a lot of people taking some absurd principles for granted when they make no sense at all, property taxes being one of them. So imagine you grind at least 30 years of your life working extra hours or two jobs to pay for an already inflated asset based on speculated prices rather than the actual cost, only to end up with that asset in a perpetual rent agreement where if you stopped paying it you basically don't own it anymore, a rent that also isn't controlled, so you can get screwed in the future like how a lot of people ended up selling their house because their retirement isn't enough to cover such rent.
Make it make sense, the only real winners here are the banks after they collect all that compound interest throughout all these years, and the government taking all these taxes.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#35Really seems to me that there should be no exemption for land tax for non profits or religious reasons. It is just far too subject to abuse, and it means that we have large churches in the middle of incredibly dense cities that pay almost nothing in taxes.
In my metro area it irks me to see the churches with large empty parking lots empty most of the week. We have a housing shortage and they seem to have no little incentive to convert their parking to more productive use. I agree, the whole ruse that these 501s meaningfully does charitable work for our communities is laughable and their tax exemption should be revoked, at least with regard to land taxes.
There are almost no places where a housing shortage is due to a lack of land. Housing shortages have all sorts of reasons, from constructions cost, to zoning, to restrictions on what can be built, but it's virtually never a lack of land.
And parking is a productive use - they have services once a week, and parking means people can come to the service. That's the definition of productive use. Something does not need to be used 24/7 to be productive.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government already has and does do exactly this. Is this suppose to be a gotcha? If you have very valuable property, you should pay taxes on it. Claiming that you have ownership over land on this planet is odd, you didn't create the land and governments change overtime.
Historically speaking, I am not sure if humans argued that they have created the land and therefore they should be allowed to use it. Ownership of the land and its use is, rather, simply tied to one's ability to retain it ( possession being 9/10ths of the law and all that ).
Yes, you are correctly identifying that all land rights stem from one's ability to claim nature's productive power as his own and monopolize all output from it.
This was self-evident in the feudal era, when landlords (Lords) had to at least raise their own militaries to assert this monopoly right. But the modern State and the landlords reached a compromise: the State will provide security to protect the lords' monopoly on nature so long as the landlords don't raise armed forces.
Totally absurd arrangement.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#37Really seems to me that there should be no exemption for land tax for non profits or religious reasons. It is just far too subject to abuse, and it means that we have large churches in the middle of incredibly dense cities that pay almost nothing in taxes.
Yes. And then after many years, the appreciated land is sold for a profit.
A profit for who? It's a non-profit. If the sale netted extra money it goes back to the people who donated, or to another non-profit.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property tax is an emerging issue. There are movement to end property taxes or limit them across the US. There is some opposite momentum toward the land value tax, which is a good thing, but these are less visible and likely weaker than a tax revolt by landowners. Eventually, if the current trend continue for property taxes, we will see a disruption in government funding for basic service, and the contraction of the…
> There is some opposite momentum toward the land value tax, which is a good thing, but these are less visible and likely weaker than a tax revolt by landowners. You're breaking my heart here. A land value tax is embraced by anti-tax advocates like Milton Friedman as the "least bad tax" as well as by actual Marxists. However, it does seem like in the current moment a land-owner tax revolt is the likeliest end game. A…
I'm more convinced that the LVT is the least invasive than it being the least bad in economic action, although I can somewhat understand the argument for it. If you eliminated all the other taxes and only used LVT then a large part of the financial surveillance apparatus wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The part about bean counting every bit of income, profit, and gain and then being made to report it to the government under the auspices of just paying your tax is absolutely dystopic compared to LVT.
The biggest challenges of Georgism are that it is basically communism for land (George straight up admits this in one of his books) and creates some issues with efficiently allocating land resources, especially bad with the fact that it can wipe out land speculators which perform an important role in doing time-allocation of land. But it's probably worth the tradeoff if you can eliminate the other taxes.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#39>property taxes Call it what it is, a perpetual rent. There's nothing funnier than a lot of people taking some absurd principles for granted when they make no sense at all, property taxes being one of them. So imagine you grind at least 30 years of your life working extra hours or two jobs to pay for an already inflated asset based on speculated prices rather than the actual cost, only to end up with that asset in a…
Yes you should not be able to own something you had no hand in creating, such as the earth beneath your feet or the productivity of that earth created by your community.
Totally absurd to think that you should!
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think a government should be able to seize property under eminent domain if they believe that selling it to a third party to commercially develop would lead to higher tax revenue?
The government already has and does do exactly this. Is this suppose to be a gotcha? If you have very valuable property, you should pay taxes on it. Claiming that you have ownership over land on this planet is odd, you didn't create the land and governments change overtime.
Property taxes are the most evil of taxes because they force you out onto the street if you're unable to pay them. Qualifying it with the words "very valuable" to solve the problem creates an arbitrary two-tier system that is inherently unfair.
>Claiming that you have ownership over land on this planet is odd, you didn't create the land and governments change overtime.
The government didn't create the land either.