I don't like paying taxes but I realize those taxes pay for the "common good". That is a right given to congress per the Constitution.
I like to reduce things to the simplest scenario. So let's say that there are two people in the world. Which of the two people has the legitimate authority to demand stuff from the other?
Yes, but I think he mentions he is okay with an individual controlling land if the individual reimburses society for the use. Property taxes essentially do that. And, if I don't pay the taxes, my ownership of the land will be terminated by force if necessary. Surely this "revelation" will satisfy bringiton?
Let's say that the nation had 2 people. Which of them would have the right to tax the other? And why?
And if my aunt had a penis she would be my uncle. False equivalencies are what you are selling, and I am not buying.
My property taxes are paid to the government authority and then our elected representatives allocate said funds for the supposed benefit of society. Trust me, I am on your side in this thread, just thought this may be a way to satisfy bringiton.
Dude, you just offended half the posters on this website. If your aunt had one of them, she just might be the women's weight-lifting champ.
Hm. Your refusal to entertain ideas is telling. So by what authority does the state point guns at people? And we're agreeing that "the state" is a particular set of people, right?
@bringiton will never be satisfied. He wants yours and my stuff. And he is willing to use violence to get it.
Right. There's always more oppression, evil and injustice to fight. Maybe you are satisfied with oppression, evil and injustice, but: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman Nope. You made that up. I only want my rights, or just compensation for their abrogation. You just want to abrogate my rights without making just compensation. Simple. I'm willing to use violence to defend against violence. YOU are willing to INITIATE violence if it is in your financial interest to do so. See the difference?
You say landowners do: owning land means having a right to make other people pay you for permission to exist. That's taxation. I want to end that system of taxation, and make sure everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor without having to pay anyone for permission to exercise those rights.
Well I don't agree with your plan -- which you are actually carrrying out -- to deprive me and everyone else, by violent, aggressive, forcible physical coercion, of our rights to liberty by owning land without making just compensation for what you are taking from us.
The market value of the land measures how much more you would rightly pay for what you are taking from everyone else than you can currently expect to pay.
Okay. So for someone to build a house on a piece of land, they would have to pay a tax equal to the value of the land every year?
Yes. Of course, the market value of land is just the market's estimate of how much more the landowner will be able to take from the community by owning the land than he can expect to pay in taxes on it, so the land's value would under that system be very small. It would certainly be far more affordable than it is now, net of taxes.