Face it: Property taxes are forcing Illinoisans out of their homes

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by MolonLabe2009, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    7,404
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody has a right to use the property of another, which is gained by purchasing it.. You can't use my car. You can't use my washing machine. You damn sure can't use my underwear. And you can't even so much as set foot on my real property w/o permission. With the possible exception of some government property, the same is true... just try getting into the Pentagon w/o credentials.

    So, some random stranger ought to just get random ownership of my property, like the lottery?

    That's my whole point. I DID pay for it. At fair market value. It's mine. Just as is the computer I'm typing this response on.

    Those capital gains are worth $0 until realized. Meaningless.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nope. Higher paid labor just has to pay landowners more for permission to access jobs. All production in excess of the margin is taken by landowners. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH. Hello?
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,768
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Increased demand...equals increase in property values.

    In my county the median price of housing is $650K...there is little housing that is considered affordable.

    Affordable housing issue has little to do with personal incomes...
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can only rightfully purchase something that is rightfully owned. There is no way land could ever have become rightfully owned, any more than the earth's atmosphere, the sun, the alphabet, the number 43, or slaves.
    Those are products of labor which you presumably obtained with their original producer's consent. You did not obtain ownership of land by the original producer's consent, because there was no original producer; you only obtained it by forcibly stripping others of their natural liberty right to use it.
    Why would I need your permission to walk upon the earth's surface and use it to sustain myself? How did you come to own my right to liberty, hmmmmmm?
    No, no more than emancipating slaves meant that random strangers got ownership of that "property."
    So, your ownership claim to land rests on the exact same foundation as the ownership claims of slave owners.

    No further argument is necessary: your claim is as worthless -- and evil -- as theirs.
    That is of course a bald falsehood, as any accountant could inform you if you were willing to be informed (you aren't). They are an increase in assets, and the fact that they are less liquid than cash is utterly irrelevant.
    Your silly garbage certainly is.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You want to pocket the benefit of publicly funded services and infrastructure without paying for them. You want to steal from all who are made to pay taxes. Simple.
     
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,261
    Likes Received:
    5,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I want to make residential property investment unprofitable to lower housing costs. Ideally, no one would pay any property tax and everyone would have a place to call home that neither govt nor bank nor landlord can take from them when they fall on hard times. Decentivizing residential property investment promotes both.

    The system we have now is trending toward neofeudalism with a few elites renting everything to everyone else. The inevitable conclusion over a long enough timeline being that we're either one of the elite property owners, a slave to them, or homeless.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reducing investment in housing construction will reduce supply, which will make it more costly, not less. Reducing LAND speculation, which really WOULD lower housing costs, can't be done without increasing taxes on land.
    Like I said: you want to take from the community, and not pay for what you are taking.
    Nope.
    And that is happening mainly because property tax rates have been FALLING for decades. See CA since Prop 13, which comprehensively and conclusively refutes your claims.
    Taxing land can fix that, nothing else can.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  8. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,261
    Likes Received:
    5,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't say anything about reducing construction. Theres no reason that reducing investment will decrease the supply if theres still demand. And there will be demand because people need places to live. Housing should be treated as a necessity like water and air, not as a commodity or a luxury good.

    Take what? Anything funded by property taxes can be funded by other taxes instead.

    Why dont you explain in your own words how lower property taxes make property less affordable.

    Further explanation required.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  9. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    7,404
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For milenna, home/land ownership was literally enforced by force. The guy with the biggest sword who knew how to use it the best owed the land out of sheer force. But over time we became more civilized and came to recognize land ownership based on purchasing it via currency of some kind. Land can be owned. It's just a plot of grass that can be defined by size, location, elevation, and other cosmetic features. We use this thing called government to keep track of who owns what. There are other things like title insurance and property insurance that further that individual ownership.

    I'm sorry you think you magically own my property, but you don't. I would strongly recommend you don't make any effort to set foot on my land, and most especially inside my dwelling.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You said you wanted to reduce investment in housing. That means construction. Did you mean speculation? People don't speculate in housing, because it depreciates. They speculate in LAND because it APpreciates.
    Yes there is: the supply is continuously deteriorating. If people don't invest in building more, the supply will all decay into rubble.
    There's demand for lots of things that are not supplied because it isn't profitable.
    Nope. Housing is a product of labor. People have a RIGHT to water and air because they would otherwise be available. Nobody has to provide them. People DON'T have a right to housing because it is not otherwise available. Someone has to build it.

    Get it?
    Others' liberty rights and the benefit of public spending on desirable services and infrastructure.
    That would just increase the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.
    By increasing the net subsidy to landowners. Land value is nothing but the market's estimate of the net future subsidy to the landowner: land rent minus land taxes. Bigger net subsidy, higher land cost. Simple.
    Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,448
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nope. That's just brute, animal possession, not ownership.
    Nope. There's a difference between owning and merely holding by force. Thieves hold stuff by force all the time, but they don't own it.
    Laws of property and exchange don't convert forcible theft of people's rights to liberty into justice, as chattel slavery proved.

    Think you can remember that?
    Just as slaves could be until a couple hundred years ago: i.e., legally. But that's all.
    No, it's a resource that nature provided for all, and that others would otherwise be at liberty to use to support themselves, as our ancestors did for millions of years, if "owners" did not forcibly stop them.
    But what it really is is owning others' rights to liberty.
    I'm sorry you felt you had to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written, but you had no choice. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. If I say you don't own the earth's atmosphere, that is not a claim that I own it.

    GET IT????
    <yawn>
     

Share This Page