     PatriotsMother | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 01:34 pm 
Joel,
Could you give us an example of how your proposed property tax could be assessed without destroying the privacy of property owners? |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 03:27 pm
Patriot Mother,
I can't speak for Joel's view of his proposed property tax, but it seems to me that most of the necessary information needed for the *minimal* classification of property developments required to place the property in a certain tax bracket, is to a large extent already available for public access in city files and in real estate databases. Your home has already been classified according to the acreage of the lot, the type of dwelling it is ("residential"), and the square footage of the home. That's pretty much all the information that is needed for tax purposes. The information on the property would probably be verified and filed when you move into the house, and updated when you do any substantial remodeling that alters the data in one or more of those categories (e.g. adding square footage to the house, or converting it to a business location). It isn't as if the government has to have on file every piece of electronic equipment you have in your home, whether or not you have a dog, or even if you have a small garden in your backyard. The categories are simple, the information readily and easily available, and the definitions of each tax level would be clearly defined, so that people know before they add an extra room whether they will pay a slightly higher property tax. The proposal is considerably less invasive to private affairs than a sales tax (where businesses must report and account for every transaction), income tax (we all know the privacy invasions involved there), and many other forms of taxation that are wrongfully in effect today. Plus, as we've mentioned before, property tax has the advantage of being specifically tied to a service the government is rendering (national defense of such property). If you have a better solution for a system that would provide such an advantage without becoming onerous, put it forward for discussion. |
| earl (Earl) | Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 10:47 am
Joel,Why are you against funding the Federal
government, solely with Tariffs. |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 03:27 pm
Tariffs undermine the free market system by artificially raising the price of some goods (namely, those that are imported from certain -- or all -- countries). This takes away some of the freedom of the consumer to choose the product that suits him based on his own criteria (and not influenced by the government). They are similar to sales taxes in their abuse of the free market system by putting commercial transactions between the citizen and the government. In a free society, a person should have the liberty to do business (or not do business) with whomever it pleases him, without government intervention. |
| earl (Earl) | Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 11:22 am
the Negative of the Property Tax is,
just as today,
When you dont pay you, will be thrown into Prison,
you will lose your Job,your Home , and your Freedom.
That is the Definition of an Oppresive Tax system,and is the type used by Oppressive Governments. |
| earl (Earl) | Sunday, July 23, 2000 - 03:05 am
CSkousen you write"This (Tariffs) takes away some of the Freedom of the consumer..."
If you are truely concerned with "some of the Freedom of the consumer" you would be against a tax system that would put the consumer in Prison
for failure to pay the Tax.
Also putting the consumer in prison has a Greater impact(negative)on that persons Liberty,under a Coercive Property Tax than a Sales Tax.
A Property Tax certainly requires the government to keep track of everyone and where they live.
This allows Maximum, Government Intervention.
A Sales tax system allows you to have Privacy from Government.
With Sales Tax system, there is NO Prison for failure to pay the Tax.If you dont pay the tax the Seller can pay the Tax himself,OR Refuse to sell the Item to you . No Debtors Prison!! |
| Webmaster (Tom) | Sunday, July 23, 2000 - 05:32 pm
Every nation (around 20 "Western" style Democracies) which has implemented a National Sales Tax has ended up having a Value Added Tax which is more regressive and costly than our current system. It also places a huge burden upon every layer of business which buys and sells anything. The end result is a product with a price completely inflated. The tax enforcement of governments is huge because it has to audit business records and impose massive record keeping requirements. An NST/VAT may protect an individuals privacy but at what cost to the economy? Ask France.
This is not an endorsement for our current system but I'm nowhere near convinced enough to support an NST/VAT. |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Monday, July 24, 2000 - 12:49 am
Sales tax may allow the consumer some form of "privacy" as you call it, but it certainly doesn't allow the business owner any. The government keeps track of any and all business transactions that are made. No privacy there!
Any tax system by nature involves some amount of coercion -- if the tax weren't mandatory, people wouldn't pay it. But as Tom said, sales taxes are a drain on the economy (sometimes oppressively so), and as has previously been pointed out, they have no direct relationship with the services of government. Why pay the government every time you buy a book? Why make the bookstore report its transaction with you, and act as an unpaid tax collector for the government?
Keep in mind, *anyone* who doesn't pay taxes -- whether they're an individual not paying property taxes, or a business owner not properly collecting sales taxes -- is in violation of the law and can be thrown in jail. Don't keep acting as though it's only property owners who can get thrown in jail over taxes. That's part of the whole coercion factor, a necessary aspect to taxes. The *advantages* to a property tax system over a business transaction-oriented system are:
1) Property taxes are *directly related* to the service for which they are paying -- military defense of the property of the nation. Business transactions have no relation to government services, and thus should not be taxed.
2) By clearly defining the uses for property taxes (as supporting military efforts in the nation) you have an automatic feedback loop set up regarding increases in military spending -- and thus increases in property taxes. No such direct correllation exists with sales taxes, as they go every which way (since they don't relate directly to any one aspect of government). In the property tax instance, you raise the people's level of resistance to unreasonable property taxes, since they can see exactly where the money is going, and protest if the spending is unnecessary. |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Wednesday, July 26, 2000 - 03:40 pm
We have a thread established for the property tax question. Please keep your property tax comments confined to this thread.
In a free society, do you pay for the services you receive? Yes, that is one of the defining features of a free economy. If you go to school, you pay tuition. If you use the roads, you pay a user fee. What if the service is given on an ongoing basis? Then you pay on an ongoing basis. This is the basis for property tax. People organize into a nation and establish a government for the mutual benefit of defense of their rights. This includes the right not to be invaded, bombed, or otherwise antagonized by foreign forces. What is the best defense against foreign agression? A military. What is the military defending? The citizens of the nation, and the property of the nation. You are receiving a *benefit*; thus, you pay for the *benefit* in the form of taxes -- a head tax and a property tax. If you don't pay a property tax, you are a free rider, taking advantage of the benefit of a national defense without paying for it. Thus, you are in violation of the law. This is not an arbitrary conclusion.
You have to get beyond the "rule" that property tax equals communism. It doesn't -- not if the tax is clearly defined, and specifically used, to pay for a service that the government is actually set up to render to the general property of the nation. In this case, you are treating the government as you would any private enterprise which renders you service. It just so happens that the government is best suited to establish and direct a national military -- that is one of the primary reasons governments are set up. They aren't set up to regulate businesses, build up the economy, provide schools, or even print money. All these can be done (and are better done) through private means. However, the government is set up to "provide for the common defense" as it were, and for that the citizens should rightly pay. |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Wednesday, July 26, 2000 - 09:50 pm
Following a conversation with my husband (who has a talent for seeing issues from a different perspective), I would like to play "devil's advocate" for a moment. I stand by the notion that property tax can have a place in a free society, for the reasons I stated above, and does not automatically equate to communism. However, I would like to step back a moment and consider some more fundamental aspects of this proposal.
Let's start with the idea -- which we all agree on, I assume -- that government does perform services to the population which need to be paid for, and that the source of the payments must (in a free society) directly relate to the services rendered. One of these services is the operation of a national military. Joel has proposed two sources of funding for the military -- a head tax and a property tax. How are those directly linked to the services being rendered? Well, the head tax is easy -- the military is protecting the fundamental rights of the people, including the right to life, and the right to operate freely under the laws of the nation which they are a part of. Obviously, the benefit provided to each person in terms of defense of his fundamental rights is equal across the board, so the head tax (at least the portion devoted to military funding) is the same for all who live in the country.
Now let's look at the connection between property and the military. There are two facets here. First, the military is set up to defend the property of the nation from external military aggression. Is the cost of property defense in this regard the same across the board? No, it depends on the *strategic importance* of the property from a military standpoint. A thousand acres of desert on the Mexican border could serve as an invasion point for an outside force, and therefore requires more effort to defend militarily than a high-rise apartment building in New York. Already, it would seem that the owner of the desert property should pay a higher property tax for defense of his land. But for one thing, strategic importance is a subjective and often varying value -- which would make any attempt to assign a tax bracket to such value arbitrary. Secondly, the high-rise apartment owner has at least an indirect interest in funding the military defense of "strategic" areas, since the acquisition or use of such areas by the enemy could serve to aid in the demise of his government and its defense of his rights. From a national defense standpoint, defense of the more strategic areas of the nation translates to defense of all property in the nation (and, by extension, all individuals) -- thus, all should contribute equally to such defense.
The second connection between property and the military consists of the general defense of the right to own such property -- a fundamental right covered under the head tax umbrella.
So conceivably, you could remove property tax from the military funding question entirely, and depend exclusively on a head tax, which would be equal for all persons residing in the nation. The tax would rise and fall, depending on the need for the government to finance military endeavors. Those in the lower end of the income spectrum for whom it is excessively burdensome to pay the tax each year could settle their account through extra military service or other service in the national defense sector -- either part-time or on a full-time basis, with a proper portion of their salaries deducted by the government for head tax purposes depending on a contracted arrangement. Incidentally, in times of war the head tax for defense spending would increase, inducing a greater number of people to enlist in the military effort to help alleviate their taxation requirement -- which could be an advantage. |
| earl (Earl) | Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 09:29 am
According to a San Francisco Chronicle article in 1998 or 1999,those 20 western "democracys"are SOCIALIST.
Now you know why they act the way they do.
In the U.S.we have a Republican form of government(not like Socialist party B,the republicans,they too have been infected with socialist ideals. |
| Jack Kuncl (Jkuncl) | Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 10:27 am
Earl - You mean we HAD a republic. That is long gone. Democracy is a buzz word used to con the sheep into thinking they are still 'free'. Sounds like everyone on this list is ready for a change to the Libertarian party, which would put a quick end to the elitist New World Order. We don't hear much about Harry Brown due to elitist control of the media. Someday we'll wake up |
| PatriotsMother | Monday, August 07, 2000 - 03:14 pm
Okay, I'm back from the library, and have some new material to introduce into this discussion.
Jack has a point about Libertarianism--but I would suggest reading the writings of Murray Rothbard, such as The Ethics of Liberty, who really developed the consistent and complete system of ethics that we now know as the Libertarian movement.
Due to what I've studied, I now agree that defense costs are justifiably proportional to the property defended--so, in principle, a proportional fee according to property is not unreasonable.
What is unreasonable is awarding government a monopoly on defense. I believe we all can agree that government, by merit of it monopolistic and bureaucratic nature, is inefficient and wasteful. So what happens to defense in the hands of the government? The same thing that happens to any product under monopolistic conditions--rising prices and falling quality. The United States Constitution was the great experiment in a government designed to protect the life and property of its citizens. However, as it stands now, we as citizens pay heinous taxes for all levels of protection, from local to international, and what do we receive in return? Police that arrive after the fact, who have no duty to protect individual citizens, and provide little if no deterrent to crime; a military complete with weapons of mass destruction ordered to slaughter thousands indiscriminately, instead of targeting those rulers responsible for the conflict--those who are sitting back in their luxurious suites, smiling at the thought of the riches and power the slaughter will bring them. We have a "criminal justice" system in which we pay for ineffective "protection", and then the apprehension, prosecution, imprisonment and support (including health care and cable TV) of the individual that robbed us in the first place--all without any form of restitution, unless the victim wants to go to the even more heinous expense of a civil case for damages. The worst part about this whole system is that the government gets to decide how much we pay for these "services".
It is sheer ludicrism to bestow the power to name the price for any good or service upon the producer of the same, (even if there is high resistance to increases). However, with a compulsory territorial monopoly on defense, that's what we do.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe has some interesting things to say in his essay "The Private Production of Defense" (available from www.mises.org). While I can't quote the entire essay here, I can give a synopsis.
Defense can be provided by the private sector, within a structure already extant. Insurance companies have the network and policies in place to easily provide protective services from aggressors, as well as damages when their defense services fail. They also have the billions of dollars necessary to invest in both local defense services and defense on the national level.
The laws of the free market provide monetary incentives for the best forms of defense possible--as well as the complete avoidance of the amoral "total war" that is indiscriminately waged today against innocent people that happen to live under the enemy's rule. If you hold an insurance policy protecting your life and property from aggression, it is in the insurance company's best interest to provide as much deterrent against aggression as possible, in order to avoid paying out claims for damages from the same. They would encourage a well-armed citizenry and high-security residences with lower rates for those policies, since those customers would be far less likely to be made victims. Known aggressors wouldn't be able to get insurance simply because of the prohibitive collateral damage claims they would incur for the insurance companies, and would therefore be vulnerable--a strong deterrent to aggression.
Under this type of system, there would be extensive databases held by the insurance companies of private property values and possessions--however, information held by private companies is not the danger to private property that the same information would be in the hands of government. Misuse of such information by the insurance companies would be slaughtering the goose that lays the golden egg. However, misuse of the same information by the government would only serve to increase government's power and further limit personal freedom.
By leaving defense in the free market arena, and allowing the hundreds of insurance companies now in business to dive in and compete, the customers of the defense providers--you and I--will benefit from the pressures of supply and demand, resulting in falling prices and rising quality--the real road to "security". |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Monday, August 07, 2000 - 11:19 pm
That is an interesting proposal. I could see that it could be effective on the local level. However, I disagree that a national defense could viably be privatized. As I understand it, the whole purpose of government is to defend the fundamental rights of its citizenry. This is done in two ways -- 1) establishment of the rule of law for internal defense of fundamental rights; and 2) establishment of a military for defense of the nation as a whole against external threats. These are the two essential reasons government is created. You cannot separate the government from the national military any more than you can separate the government from the legislative process. These are the roles government was designed to perform. Without the ability to fulfill both of these roles, the government is rendered defunct and useless.
We must leave the defense of the nation as a whole in the hands of the government, and concentrate on providing for a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances that leaves the government accountable to the people to maintain an adequate defense. |
| Jack Kuncl (Jkuncl) | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 10:47 am
Thanks to the current administration we no longer have a national defense. The book 'Betrayal" spells it all out. Read it and weep. Came out in 1999 and easily available. |
| PatriotsMother | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 11:42 pm
Celeste,
First: One of the many problems with government is that it's purpose, "to defend the fundamental rights of its citizenry", is its greatest shortcoming. Any government is composed of men--men who are attracted to power and prestige, who crave to be in the spotlight, to have the approbation of the masses and to "take care" of them to further secure their position. Those who most want to be in government are the least suited to secure the best interests of the people--and those most suited to honorable service just want to live and let live. No matter how a government is framed, the men within it will bend and break the restrictions simply because they have the power, and there is no immediate, negative consequence for doing so. You cannot put imperfect people in positions of power and expect them to behave without powerful, personally affective deterrents against unwanted behavior. When no accountability exists, there can exist no rule of law. A wise man named Alma said, "Now, if there was no law given--if a man murdered he should die--would he be afraid he would die if he should murder? . . . But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed . . . ."
Governments throughout history, (with the rather obvious exception and good example of Switzerland), have unfailingly disarmed the population to better wield dictatorial power. Their plea was "leave the defense of the nation . . . in the hands of the government". These governments had military power to back their claims, and the people foolishly allowed the right of self-defense stripped from their lives. If government does not wield military power, then it cannot even pretend to make the claim of providing protection for its citizenry, and can never disarm and oppress them. An old Boy Scout adage advises "If you don't want a fire, keep your flint in one pocket and your steel in the other."
Second: The only way to allow the rule of law is to allow both incentives to live within, and real deterrents against living without, the rule of law to exist. Government itself does not accomplish this--its very existence eventually disallows those incentives and deterrents vital to liberty. Government does not establish the rule of law--individuals do. Only individuals can choose for themselves whether or not to live peaceably. Governments have proven they are incapable of doing so.
Third: "Internal defense" is the responsibility of the citizens themselves, whether through personal preparation, or through free market contracts with defense insurance agencies.
Fourth: I think we all can agree that war is waged for power, money, and political advancement. How many times has the U.S. been the subject of unprovoked aggression? None. Actual large scale territorial attack against the North American continent is highly complicated and expensive due to the logistics of the invasion. Also, if there is a well-armed and feisty populace waiting for the troops, what army is going to want to invade? That populace, along with the artillery, tanks, etc., kept in readiness by the insurance companies (who want to prevent as many damage claims as possible, as well as maximize their profits by offering more protection services) will be more than adequate to discourage foreign territorial attack. Granted, current technology makes an attack on the U.S. much more feasible than it was in 1800. However, if there is a direct and personal consequence for acts of aggression against this ideal state we're discussing, I believe the incidence of bombings, etc., would be nil. The customary, indiscriminate war waged today is simply tyrants wasting the lives and property of their subjects to further personal ends. While government is bound by bureaucratic inefficiency and sloth, insurance companies would have high monetary incentives (i.e. indemnification of the insured) to prosecute or eliminate foreign aggressors--be they tyrants or terrorists--who have damaged person or property which they insure. Joel himself suggested the most effective consequence for such acts of lethal aggression: "He who dies will never kill again."
Note: The inevitable nuclear destruction of the U.S. as we know it is a given. I wholly agree with Joel that it will happen, sooner or later. (Although probably sooner.) I don't believe that nuclear weapons are a necessary part of any moral people's defense. The "nuclear deterrent" isn't truly a deterrent--for whoever pushes the button will be thousands of miles from any possible retaliatory attack, and will emerge from the fallout just as fat and sassy as before, ready to divvy up the debris. The only real deterrent to future nuclear aggression is what I've mentioned before: death--slow and painful--to the greedy coward responsible for the launch.
Fifth: Leaving "the government accountable to the people" is not effective. "The people" is a nebulous concept--making everyone responsible for keeping the government in check will only result in nobody keeping the government in check: a.k.a. the current state of the U.S. Those in government must either be given incentives and deterrents sufficient to keep them in check without the citizenry obliging to nanny them, or the government can be done without.
Sixth: Another danger government poses is in its ability to legislate. Freedom stands on basic principles--some call them fundamental rights, others call it natural law. Those principles do not change--and neither should the law. Any conflict between citizens can be solved in light of these principles, and any attempt at further specialization in the law only results in obfuscation--which our current system exemplifies. Joel's writings are an example of this, as he extrapolates clearly from fundamental rights the resolutions necessary to maintain freedom in light of various conflicting interests.
After all of this, it remains that only a moral people can govern themselves. Only an honest, educated, and upright group of individuals can follow a body of law, and do so in relative peace. |
| earl | Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 03:35 pm
A way to hold the Legislators Accountable,
is:When the Supreme Court finds a Law Unconstitutional;
Immediately that Representative is Removed fom office and may not be appointed to any other government job.
The only thing they understand is their jobs. |
| PatriotsMother | Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 10:01 pm
Earl,
That's a good point--and a good suggestion. |
| Celeste Skousen (Cskousen) | Thursday, August 10, 2000 - 02:23 am
I should have suggested this earlier, since we have now strayed from the "Property Tax" line. Let's start a new thread regarding "Privatization of a National Defense" for discussions of this new topic. |
| Jack Kuncl (Jkuncl) | Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 12:15 pm
I like Earl's idea. That is why we have so many bad laws slip thru the cracks. |
| Joel Skousen (Joel) | Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 11:26 am
I think it is sufficient to have the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a law prior to its becoming law. There are too many nuances of law in judging constitutionality to penalize lawmakers to that extent for small errors. That would have too much of a chilling effect on lawmaking. Remember, there is the signiature requirement within the citizenship compact not to knowingly attempt to undermine the fundamental rights of others. To enforce this provision, there would have to be a branch of the higher courts that would handle complaints against citizens who violate this provision. This would and should be applied to legislators as well. It has to be handled on a case by case basis, and must be structured so that some dissent or disagreement within the body of law is not discouraged. |
