Property Taxes & Karl Marx

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Flanders, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Absolute homeownership was my favorite topic when I first began posting messages in 2000. I have not said too much about it in recent years; so I thought I would go over it again on this board in light of today’s real estate problems. Fair warning to sound bite mentalities: This message is in two parts.

    Let me began by pointing out that the loss of upward pressure on the real estate market is responsible for much of the real estate slump. That slump is the result of the stiffening objection to open borders. The government wants desperately to keep the borders open as well as give amnesty to the millions of illegals already here in order to revitalize the real estate market. The choice between open borders and a real estate economy is not that complicated. I like to think that American homeowners are willing to take the hit if the borders are effectively secured.

    Private property

    “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

    That definition of communism is attributed to Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), German social philosophers, revolutionaries. At the time that pronouncement was laid down in Europe it sounded pretty good to people who had no property, but let’s look at how that directive from two Communist icons is imposed on American homeowners through taxation.

    American Communists have turned homeownership into an ever-increasing, never-ending tax liability, and all the while swearing they are only benevolent Socialists. Homeownership is the tightest grip Socialists/Communists have on the individual’s throat. Try breaking that grip by not buying a home and you are left with the choice of paying exorbitant rent, living in a slum, or finding yourself a clean room outdoors. Under the present system of property taxation there is nothing but subservience to one entity or the other.

    It is so sickening to hear Socialists say things like “Homeownership is up.” What the hell does that mean under socialism? To Socialists it means that more Americans have real property the government can confiscate. Incidentally, you never hear politicians of any stripe brag about raising property taxes. Big government advocates don’t want homeowners in those communities where property taxes are still relatively low to notice creeping socialism slowly inching its way towards them.

    Taking Marx and Engels at their word and applying communism’s foundation principle to contemporary America, it is clear that strengthening private property Rights through absolute homeownership is the only effective way to attack socialism/communism. Absolute homeownership means that a primary residence will be beyond the reach of the tax collector, untouchable by the courts and trial lawyers, and even beyond the grasp of creditors once the deed is in the prospective homeowner’s name.

    Any politician who truly wants to dismantle socialism in this country doesn’t stand a chance if he or she attacks socialism by charging at one stronghold at a time. By the time any headway is made in one direction the Socialist/Communist sneaks in government will have built ten more additions to the public trough. The best way to really cripple socialism/communism is with one constitutional chop.

    Absolute homeownership protecting every primary residence is the way to get the most bang for the buck with the least amount of legislative hanky-panky. Besides: The thought of watching American Communists tapdance around such a constitutional amendment just tickles me to no end. Instead of trying to jerk everyone out of the public trough who doesn’t belong there just stop putting feed in the tub to begin with. Starving the leeches away from the trough is the way to go.

    Before anyone points to the economic upheaval that such an Amendment would create, consider this: There is no immutable law that says local and state governments must be funded by property taxes; so a new freedom from government is worth any amount of adjustment to the way the economy works. Quite a few men and women have died for a taste of freedom from oppressive government; so embarking upon a few years of economic commotion is not a big deal. And every non-Socialist American will know that the prize at the end of the road will make the journey well-worth the disruption. My biggest fear is that the economy will go into the dumper before Americans regain the individual liberties they lost to date.

    If the economy does tank à la The Great Depression the government will not solve the problem by willing giving Americans more freedom of choice in their personal lives, nor will it let private sector Americans out from under government control. The Socialists/Communists running the government will move to take freedoms away from the private sector just as they did during the Great Depression.

    One good thing happens if the US does run into another Great Depression: The Socialists/Communists can’t blame capitalists for the damage because it is Socialists who created a welfare state in order to realize their international ambitions.

    Americans will gladly tackle any problem if they know that a little more individual liberty will be the reward. An additional dividend will be had when Communists/Socialists have to stand up and actually say they oppose such an Amendment. Sending a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification is a clear-cut proposition; so the spin doctors fall by the wayside from the git-go. Once prominent public trough leeches are maneuvered into defending their religion by preaching civic obligations as defined by socialism, everyone will see them for the greedy, guilt-ridden, dirty little economic moralists they really are.

    Socialists never hid the fact that private property would be done away with under their system of government. Historically, Socialists avoided the label of Communists, but socialism calls for state ownership and control of every means of production and distribution of wealth as does communism. Avowed Communists come right out and say they would do away with private property. It is self-defined Socialists who are achieving that end through taxation without being as honest about it as were Marx and Engels.

    So-called homeowners are led to believe that they own property. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialists will never encourage private property and its attendant legal Rights under any circumstances. So why do Socialists in government encourage people to buy into socialism through homeownership? (Don’t forget that public trough leeches pay their property taxes with tax money they latched onto.)

    Right about here I want to take a shot at environmentalists before returning to my subject. It would be nice if those environmental grunts who are being duped by Socialists/Communists would stop trying to convince themselves, and everyone else, they only want to hand a pristine world to future generations. Instead of worrying about bequeathing suckerfish to people a hundred years from now, they would better-serve future generations if they handed them secure individual liberties.

    If freedom is left to do its thing communism will eventually be cast aside everywhere. For Communists it is either absolute power or abject failure. In the same vein Americans admire this country’s Founding Fathers for the freedom from oppressive government they set in motion —— no one is going to admire environmentalists for the damage they are doing to individual liberty.
     
  2. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    PART TWO:

    NOTE: The EPA is only one prong of the Socialist/Communist attack on private property, i.e. control of all wealth leading to the abolition of private property. An integral component in that objective gives environmentalists control over all property. Hussein & Company well-know that if they lose control of the environment they lose control of the private sector. Controlling every means of production and sales is not enough because the work force can always reduce their efforts and bring the entire system down. Of course, the government could always turn to forced labor as Communist governments always do, but that tends to get a bit adventurous when dealing with a well-armed private sector citizenry.

    So if Socialists want to abolish private property why the recent mortgage fiasco where the government forced banks to give mortgages to unqualified buyers?

    Socialists/Communists have several reasons for wanting to see every American living in a house they think is theirs. Once a family, or an individual, have most of heir resources tied up in a home the government can always take it away if the homeowner doesn’t behave politically. Homeownership, Socialist style, is not a property Right —— it is a way of keeping people in line.

    Also, by raising property taxes, homeowners are required to work just that much harder to hang onto the Socialist version of the American Dream.

    And let’s not forget the most important reason of all: Nobody in the private sector will willingly work for socialism/communism; so it is imperative that Americans believe they are working for themselves when they purchase and maintain a house. When people believe they are working for themselves and their families they will put extra effort into their work. That work ethic is something that tax dollar slavery can never elicit from its slaves.

    Oppressive property tax on a non-commercial primary residence is the most insidious manifestation of communism yet devised in this country. It is not only insidious it is meanspirited because the Socialists/Communists in government are saying “You can only live in a private residence if you pay us, and if you don’t like the way it works take your family and go live in the gutter.”

    Property taxes are not federal taxes; so why blame the federal government for property taxes? Answer: There are four tax collecting agencies in the U.S.: Federal, state, county, and local governments, but they are all controlled by Socialists/Communists when it comes to property taxes.

    Whenever the public shows signs of resisting federal taxes, the federal government says to the state governments “We got enough for a while, now you go and get some.” The states say the same thing to local governments and around and around they go —— always on an upward spiral. Every tax increase in this country is planned and controlled by Socialists/Communists in Washington, D.C. no matter which entity actually collects the taxes, or which name those taxes go by. The Right to collect those taxes is the only absolute Right the federal government allows the states to exercise.

    I make a distinction between non-commercial and commercial private property; so I will address commercial private property first.

    Commercial private property has built-in safeguards against excessive taxation. Too much taxation will hurt any commercial enterprise. No government wants to damage the economy in that way. If that safeguard is not enough the business community is well-organized and can lobby to protect itself much better than can an individual homeowner. Without anything else protecting commercial property those two safeguards against excessive taxation are lethal to the tax collector. Undeveloped land would also be considered commercial property and subject to taxation along the lines it is now taxed by local governments.

    What is absolute homeownership?

    For my purposes, absolute homeownership means non-commercial primary residence. No individual will have constitutional protection against confiscation on more than one primary residence, or one deed if you prefer. The deed holder is the only one who gets the constitutional protection. In that way mortgage lenders are protected. The protection transfers to the homeowner when the mortgage is paid off.

    If any individual owns two or more homes everything in excess of one is considered commercial property. That is not to say that a married couple cannot own two homes; so long as the wife’s name is on one deed, and the husband’s name is on the other. If two people share ownership on one residence that’s their limit as far as constitutional protection against confiscation from every quarter goes.

    Anyone can own ten or ten thousand residential buildings for rental purposes if they so choose, but every rental property is subject to confiscation for the usual reasons; debts, law suits, unpaid taxes, etc. No big surprises there. That is how it is done now.

    NOTE: The government’s Right of eminent domain presents a minor conflict, but not a conflict that is impossible to work through. If the government has a compelling need to confiscate a primary residence for military use, road construction, etc., the government should pay fair compensation, i.e., market value, just as it SUPPOSEDLY pays now.

    Aside from breaking socialism/communism’s grip on the American homeowner, I firmly believe that my suggested Amendment will revive the American spirit of self-reliance. And just think of the pressures that are removed from individuals who hold the deed to their home without fear of confiscation; especially the elderly living on fixed incomes.

    As it stands now, only the rich and those who exist on tax dollars live without fear of being put out in street if hard times and the tax collector comes-a-calling. I’d like to see that secure peace of mind granted to as many Americans as possible, in addition to giving Socialists/Communists a swift kick right in their foundation principle.

    I won’t get into the shot in the arm an influx of first time home buyers will give to the long-term economy. More importantly, absolute home homeownership is unquestionably a foundation for establishing a stable dollar rather than the shrinking dollar Socialists instituted.

    Another benefit is that individual debt will plummet as homeowners payoff their mortgages in order to access the constitutional protection against confiscation that I am suggesting. Every economist, liberal and conservative, agree that less personal debt is a good thing.

    In addition, moneylenders will automatically curtail their usury once they know there is no property to confiscate through the courts, and that ain’t bad either.

    I will close this post with something I said earlier: Socialists will never encourage private property and its attendant legal Rights under any circumstances.
     
  3. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If not forfeiture, what would you propose be the punishment/remedy for someone who does not pay their duly-enacted property taxes?
     
  4. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To BullsLawDan: The answer permeates the OP.
     
  5. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cliff notes it for me. TL; DR.
     
  6. sunnyside

    sunnyside Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,573
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Whoa whoa whoa. Property taxes existed long before communism or socialism.

    They have always been popular as they are relatively easy to assess and very difficult to avoid. You cannot hide your house in switzerland.

    Beyond that though, well, I'm going to guess that you haven't bought a house yet.

    I did for the first time a few years ago, and what I came to discover was that.

    -Much of the cost of a house is often there simply because the other people in the area have to be able to afford similar homes

    -That is worth every penny

    Homeowners rely on property taxes and home seizures to take out the trash in their neighborhoods.

    You can see this clearly because, as you noted, property taxes tend to occur at the local level. Meaning that if a bunch of neighbors in a community wanted to set their property taxes to zero they could vote to do so. To my knowledge this has not actually happened anywhere in the US, even if districts that aren't so fond of the public school system and therefore tend to homeschool or use private schools. They still want to clear out those pot smoking hippies down the street that are trying to live in their grandmothers old house.


    However when I was on vacation in the carribean I did come across an area where people didn't have to pay property taxes.

    The homes looked like they might have once been nice, but the area had descended into being an utter craphole. My guess is that it wasn't worth it for anybody to improve their homes significantly after their neighbor's homes became crappy enough. Nobody outside of that neighborhood would ever want to move in. And it would be pretty easy to get by on almost nothing, so that seems to be what the people were doing.
     
  7. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To sunnyside: You can say the same about many foreign countries. No Third World country is going to improve until its citizens have the same property Rights that made this country great. Those Rights being abolished will make America a Third World country. A good case can be made for defining many parts as a Second World country on its way to becoming Third World. That degeneration is rooted in excessive property taxation and the loss of Rights via the EPA and the Department of Education to name just two assaults on freedom.
     
  8. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. Flanders still hasn't learned to quote correctly, which is ridiculous.
    2. You still haven't answered my question: How do local governments ensure collection of taxes if there is no punishment for nonpayment?
     
  9. sunnyside

    sunnyside Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,573
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Um, if you'd like help learning how to split up quote I could help you with that.

    Again, property taxes existed before America was even independent. We have never not had them to my knowledge.

    And much of the Island was quite nice, this particular region had gotten an exemption from property tax and went downhill. Of course that was just one example, and there are always a lot of factors in play. But I'd generally expect similar effects to be seen.

    Lets focus on this point first for a moment. Again, this isn't some kind of Federal government wall street conspiracy thing.

    Property taxes are imposed at a much lower level. With part of them being determined at the city/municipality level, which could be very small.

    So you don't need that many residents agreeing not to tax each other to zero it out at some level, possibly replacing it with a different local tax or scaling something back.

    However from the deepest red, to yellow dog blue, to "live free or die" Vermont, you just don't see people choosing to do that anywhere.

    Absolute homeownership would be the capstone of some hypothetical libertarian sea change in policy and how people live and think. It would be an unpopular first step with negative consequences not just from the absolute homeownership itself but also from the other taxes that would be raised instead.

    At the least you'd probably have to eliminate public schools first. So maybe focus your efforts there.
     
  10. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To sunnyside: I’ve been addressing each comment to the person I respond to for years. My format developed on message boards that did not have the wrap around quote feature. Old habits do not die easily. Besides, it always tickles me when my format annoys my opposites.

    To sunnyside: I would eliminate Socialist brainwashing by restricting public school curricula to teaching the three R’s. I’ve posted numerous messages on the topic. The thread at the following link comes at it from Socialist opposition to home-schooling:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?p=3133308

    Whatever anyone thinks about public education they should realize that funding the government and funding education are not one and the same. Teachers’ unions have worked long and hard over the last century to convince Americans that government and education are inseparable. They are not. In fact, the federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in education:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/education/154360-why-not-abolish-department-education.html

    Finally, both the tax on income and excessive property taxes fund the parasite class. The parasite class must be defeated if America is to have a chance of escaping global collectivism and surviving. See this thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/152840-parasites-democracy.html

    p.s. I post links to previous threads because I’m just too tired to repeat everything every time someone disagrees with me.
     
  11. sunnyside

    sunnyside Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,573
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right right. Anyway, all that stuff is going to be more popular than absolute homeownership, and ought to come before or alongside it in any case.

    The idea of doing absolute homeownership first is going to be a non-starter, as I'd expect it to be generally disliked for different reasons by conservatives (clearing out the criminal and/or low income undesireables), liberals (what do you mean you aren't paying anything for that mansion!), and plenty of others (if we replace property taxes with sales taxes everyone will shop accross the country line!). So on and so forth.

    Which is probably why this thread isn't very popular. If you want to tread this path I'd suggest a thread on school vouchers.
     
  12. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To sunnyside: It does not bother me. Why does it bother you?

    To sunnyside: I suggest you post an original thread on school vouchers if that is your thing.
     
  13. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that you make the assumption that Karl Marx, communists, and socialists are one category makes your opinion inherently invalid. It's similar to a socialist saying all capitalists, liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, libertarians, and Keynesian theorists are exactly the same.
     
  14. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To Charles Julian: The only difference between socialism and communism is how they get to totalitarian government. Research my messages if you want more details. And please do not respond. I can tell from your reply there is nothing you can say that I have not heard before. More times than you count.
     
  15. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you consider Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela as equals to Stalin? Then perhaps Reagan is no different then General Pinochet, or George W. Bush from Franco?
     

Share This Page