This post was sparked by Alonzo Wright's Property Ownership Requirement thread, and the several mentions of property tax that were made in replies posted to it. Since this topic seems to be one that engenders a lively thread, I thought I'd start an arena for that discussion.
Simply put, not only is property tax rent, but it leads the government to believe that it has a right to a portion of that which you own--which principle is tied closely to feudalism, essentially moving the ownership of property from the citizen to the government.
How is it right that a retired couple, living on savings, should have to sell the home they've lived in for 50 some odd years because if they don't, they won't be able to pay the property taxes and still have enough savings left to provide for themselves?
How is the fundamental right of ownership conserved when the self-sufficient farming family who has no monetary income is required, upon pain of imprisonment, to pay the government "cash money" they have no immediate way of acquiring for the right to live on the land to which they own title, and that sustains them without help from the establishment?
How can government be kept in check when it thinks that whatever the "common man" happens to own is fair game for their bottomless "budgets" and thinly veiled embezzling (a.k.a. stipends)?
What about the student that doesn't own a car, doesn't use the roads, but walks wherever he goes? He makes no impact on the quality of the road, and isn't dependent on it. Should he have to pay for its upkeep?
Property tax requires the retired to remain in the workforce to offer up what little they can make to sate the insatiable appetite of leviathan. It places restrictions and requirements on the fundamental rights of citizens--restrictions and requirements that are "grievous to be borne".
I can't answer the problem of funding roads through user fees--however, I'm sure that there's an entrepreneurial mind out there that can, and do so far better than any government-subsidized (read tranquilized) effort.
And with that said, let the games begin!
There is a way to pay for government and the necessary, commonly used land areas(roads and parks)
Sales Tax- ONE Tax. It is the least intrusive; when kept at ONE Tax, the true cost of government is revealed to all.
Proof that Property Tax is Wrong.
2 Kings 24:35
And Jehoiakim gave the silver and gold to Pharaoh;
but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharoah:he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaoh-nechoh.
2 Kings 24:37
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD,according to all that his fathers had done.
Earl,
Sales tax isn't as bad for freedom as property and income taxes. However, it is still dangerous. The problem with sales tax is it's money collected by the government, and then distributed according to its whims. That is not a power I want the government to have. Government has one purpose--to establish a rule of law to protect the fundamental rights of those who consent to be governed. Tariffs and user fees are the only kinds of revenue that keep the government properly in its own bounds.
Tariffs are preferable to sales tax for a major reason--sales tax, like property tax, leads the government to believe that it has a right to a portion of the business in which private citizens engage. It's none of their concern, literally. If I decide to sell something I've made or grown or otherwise produced, why should the government get a part of my profits? Under Mr. Skousen's proposed system, I would already be paying yearly dues for the status of citizen (or a citizen tax, as he calls it) to provide funds to support the government. Why would the lean and minimal government need more revenue?
User fees are also preferable to sales tax because the necessary funds go straight from those who benefit from the service to the support of that service--there is no inefficient bureaucracy in between to support, since those services can and should be provided by entrepreneurs in the free market. It would obviously be in the best interest of any road company to keep things as efficient as possible, in order to maximize profits.
My husband had a fairly workable idea as far as user fees for the roads. He suggested that current technology could be used to advantage by simply having some kind of "smart card" or other identifying device available to those who wish to use the roads. It would be automatically read at the entrance to a toll road. Then the appropriate billing procedures would take place. This kind of system, like all others in a truly free nation-state, would be voluntary. The smart devices installed on your vehicle would be voluntary. If you don't like the idea of an automatic billing system for the roads, go through the toll booth. If that company doesn't use toll booths, choose a different road. If you don't like the toll booth, find another way to go, such as a privately owned mass transportation company. There are always alternatives to enlarging government's powers--and the alternatives are 99.99% of the time preferable to feeding the beast.
Please explain how the ENFORCEment system would work to enforce compliance.
Smart cards will end up being your IDENTITY card
Sales tax would be for state and local governments Only.
A TAX system either must be non-coercive;
IE:no enforcement system IS truly voluntary.
or a TAX system which enFORCES the tax on the least amount of people.
A SALES tax is enFORCED only on the Sellers but not enFORCED on everyone.
Citizen dues: Non-coercive. A part of the voluntary status as citizen. Since you aren't born into citizenship, you don't have to be a citizen if you don't want to. Once you attain citizenship, you then help to support the structure of government through your contributions.
Tariff: Non-coercive. Buy domestic.
User Fee: Non-coercive. If you want a service, you pay for it. If you don't use it, you aren't burdened with the cost.
Keep in mind that the suggestion my husband made was just that: a suggestion. There are a thousand ways that the billing system could be worked, including some kind of card, possibly similar to a pre-paid phone card. It just keeps track of how much value from that card's unique identifier, and there is no record of who bought it or is using it.
Sales tax does not affect the seller at all--it affects the consumer because he is the one who bears the cost. Despite the facts that sales tax is probably the least of the evils of taxation as we know it (since it is consumption based, only those who choose to do cash transactions would pay it), it still infers that the government should get a piece of the profits of private citizens. It also requires a bureaucracy to process and enforce the tax. It's inefficient and wasteful. Anytime money has to go through extra sets of hands, instead of straight to where it will end up eventually, money is wasted in bureaucrats' salaries.
User fees can and will work if people will just put their minds to it. When the alternative is burgeoning government, I think the choice is clear.
Note: To all those who may read this, please feel free to post on the original topic of property tax, as opposed to the tangent which has developed.
tariffs can only be income for the federal government.
State and local governments can not apply tarrifs.
You still have not replied to my question,How will the user fees of roads and parks be enFORCED.
Sales Tax is Paid by the buyer,but the enforcement
affects only the Seller.
Please give an Complete example, of a user fee system for;
Roads
Parks
Police
Firefighters
Water
How would the collection system work ,How would the EnFORCEment system work.
Electricity, Cable, Trash Collection,Library,
are not necessary.
The following are the general principles I use to determine a fair and equitable tax system.
1. Taxes should be direct, never hidden within the price or within any other cost.
2. Taxes should be directly related to the user of government services or protection provided.
3. Taxes should be up front and felt personally by every person paying them--this keeps resistance high to tax increases.
4. Government should never tax any form of commerce except as a user fee for services provided by government (harbor creation or maintenance, etc)
5. General Tax funds should never be used for direct benefits to any person. Where government acts as a cooperative effort in providing a direct benefit (ie. public education), it must be funded exclusively by user fees, so that those citizens who do not wish to participate do not have to pay.
6. Taxes should be structured so that "free riders" are avoided. This principle eliminates the "voluntary" tax concept, which encourages free riders who do not pay their fair share of direct or indirect protection they receive from government services.
7. Competing governmental services and systems should be allowed so as to give citizen's other choices when local or federal agencies become inefficient or corrupt administrators of tax funds.
8. Income should never be taxed.
9. Where possible, as in property taxes, there should be some correlation between amount of tax paid and the amount of say taxpayers have in the expenditures of those taxes.
10. Government part-time work-fare should be the main consequence for non-voluntary payment of taxes--not punitive prison or punishment. The only ones who would face prison (which would also involve paid work to offset the tax liability, and would result in a quick release back into society) would be those who refused to work out their tax liability through voluntary work-fare, when physically capable of doing so.
Of course, citizens who didn't pay taxes whould be in violation of their citizen contract and their power to vote or use other citizen privileges would be limited while their taxes where in arrears. This provides other voluntary incentives to pay proper taxes.
Let me suggest some ways to build a proper tax system, in keeping with these principles.
First the actual costs of government would be cut by at least 2/3 by constitutional limits on government activities (limited to the defense of people's fundamental rights). This is important lest some of the direct head taxes become intolerable for the poor.
Second, about half of the rest of government services could be converted to direct user fees. Parks, schools, road usage, some court costs, harbor usage, air traffic control, some police and fire protection, etc.
Any government services that are directly related to protecting people and their general fundamental rights should be taxed directly as an annual or monthly head tax. General government costs for running the executive, and legislative branches, plus basic judiciary costs would be assessed by head tax. Some actual people defense costs would also be part of the head tax--which should be the same for all adults. It doesn't take any more police protection for a wealthy person than a poor person (except where the rich man has more property to protect--which is a different issue). Minor children who live with their parents would be taxed at a much lower rate,--although I would suggest a sliding upward scale to be assessed for parents whose children are habitual problems in society. (Kind of like an insurance rating based upon bad driving records).
To encourage self protection, and competition for protection services (rather than give government an exclusive monopoly) police and fire service taxes could be lowered or eliminated by choosing to provide your own protection. Those who were not "subscribing" to the public protection services would then be charged a user fee any time they had to recur to public protection when their own systems failed.
Property taxes, despite some opinions expressed herein, do have a legitimate role. Defending the actual land, buildings and homes of citizens is a very big role of police and the military. Thus, there is a close and direct correlation between property and certain types of defense taxes. But they should never be used to fund schools, as they do now, as there is no correlation between the property and the schooling or some children.
Big factories and large tracts of commercial land should pay a fairly high percentage of the national and/or state defense taxes. They should also have a corresponding high vote in determining how those defense taxes are going to be used.
I would suggest only a few major catagories of tax levels on property (industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, vacant land) and tax them only generally according to value. We don't want to penalize people for fixing up their homes as assessors do now. Homes would all be taxed at the same rate, times the size of house and land. So, this tax would be the only type of tax that would be somewhat progressive, and related to ability to pay.
Taxation even on vacant land is important since it represents part of the national territory being defended. But it also helps establish a counter-incentive for the wealthy to try and buy up too much land without putting it into productive use. The tax burden of large tracts will induce them to sell some of it to others, giving a natural incentive for land redistribution without government force.
As for the plight of older homeowners not being able to afford property taxes, you would have to remember that the amount of tax would be small compared to today. Residences or small farms that were not producing commercial income would be taxed at very low rates. As in any system of liberty without government welfare, families and churches are going to have to help out those who are the worthy poor--to help them keep their homes and land. But even the poor (and their lands and houses) constitute a very real part of the protection that government must provide all citizens and residents. These legitimate costs must be paid for--it isn't fair to exempt anyone. Even if they can't earn enough off the land to pay taxes, the only consequence is having to spend some portion of each year working for a government project to work off the tax burden. No one would lose their home or land who is willing to work. If incapable of work, they don't need a lot of land, and moving to a small place where others could help them survive would be a proper move. The government wouldn't dictate that directly--but it would be a natural consequence of citizen responsibility.
There is no such thing as a person simply living off the land who doesn't owe something to the general protection against invasion that he or she receives indirectly or directly.
Joel Skousen
You still have not replied to my question,How will the user fees of roads and parks be enFORCED.
Earl, You hadn't made your questions clear before. I thought you were asking how the various road companies would enforce compliance with their particular toll system, not asking how they would make sure that everybody paid. To that question, I can only answer that I don't know. Keep in mind there are hundreds upon thousands of business and technical minds out there that are better suited to these problems than mine, complete with the aid of practical experience--and they'll have a good time working it out, I'm sure. The free market is an incredible force--individuals responding to conditions in such a way that everything works to the best advantage.
Sales Tax is Paid by the buyer,but the enforcement affects only the Seller.
The above statement is true. However, I still maintain that sales tax is highly undesirable for the following reasons:
1. Sales tax requires a bureaucracy.
2. It requires salaries to be paid to government employees for its collection and processing, and therefore has a high overhead.
3. It requires some kind of decision making process, either a vote (which can be expensive) or executive decision (dangerous), for its distribution.
4. It leads the government to believe that it has a right to a portion of the business in which any given citizen takes part.
5. Sales tax lowers sales by artificially raising the prices for goods and services. (I wonder how much of Amazon.com's and other mail-order companies' revenue would suffer if they had to pay sales tax?)
6. Lastly and most importantly: The sellers must be registered with the government and disclose private business information to ensure they are paying the government "their fair share". Sales tax is an income tax taken according to a business' revenue. Sales tax may keep the consumer anonymous, but it absolutely does not protect the privacy of the merchant. Why should we as consumers be accorded a privilege that business owners are not?
Please give an Complete example, of a user fee system for;
Roads
Parks
Police
Firefighters
Water
How would the collection system work ,How would the EnFORCEment system work.
Earl, please accept my apologies: I'm not going to give "complete" examples simply because I won't. Do you realize how many pages and pages and pages it would take to work out examples for each of those, and how much time it would take me to figure things out to "completion," to the point where you couldn't punch holes all throughout my suggestions? It's not worth it. If you want to prove that user fees couldn't work for the above services, then I happily invite you to do so. Below are some basic suggestions--starting points for other minds that make their living from those services.
Roads -- I've already given an example above. Private ownership of roads and fees for access and use, similar maybe to the eastern toll roads, which seem to work just fine.
Parks -- Parks should also be privately owned, whether by companies or individuals. We already pay "walk on" or "picnic" fees at camping grounds or day use areas in National Forests and Parks; why should park use in urban areas be any different?
(Tangential note: Current National Parks are essentially privately owned by the government, with all resources therein held as collateral for the national debt. The complete abolition of National Forests, and the release of governmental control of all such lands--including the shut down of the Forest Service--is something long overdue. Close to 97% of Alaska is National Forest, and 86% of Idaho is the same. Millions of acres of useable land has been grabbed by the Fed that should be privately owned.)
Police -- Please see Joel's post above. I agree with a simple subscription service. If you want police protection, you pay the monthly or annual fees. If you don't subscribe, you need to request service and pay therefor. (Just like the option to subscribe to a magazine, or buy it off the rack once or twice.) The same would go for fire fighting service. In places in rural California, there is already a fee billed for fire fighting service--my family has had first-hand experience with it.
Water -- Water fees could be based on usage, (in urban settings only, where you do not own the water rights to your property and are tied into the municipal water system) with the price of water covering the company's costs of bringing it to you. (Pipe maintenance, filtration costs, etc.)
Patriot Mother is absolutely on target about sales taxes. They are coercive. They distort the marketplace, especially at border areas with different levels or types of taxes. They are still an income tax for all the self-employed, so the IRS and its intrusive excesses doesn't go away--in fact it gets government deeply into every business transaction, no matter how small, once they get hungry for cash. Can you imagine having to collect sales tax for garage sale items, or an occasional item you sell in the want ads. Even barter is scrutinized and taxed.
Also, Patriot Mom is right about the level of detail we discuss here. This is not the place to write a textbook on detail user fees. We discuss concepts here and evaluate their merits. Minimal examples are often necessary to demonstrate or deny a particular argument--but not to build a detail structure yet. That comes later.
This is not an Econ 101 class but rather a discussion on philosophy of law and jurisprudence. Let's keep to the large issues of structural changes I have proposed, to see if they are valid and if they will work.
Please, may I remind all once again--read the material I have written and comment on it. None of us have unlimited time, so we can't discuss every random idea that pops into our heads. I have taken a lot of time to build a workable structural model and this discussion forum is design to solicit comments on that model. Let's keep the discussions on track. Thanks for listening and thanks for participating.
Joel Skousen
Suggested Model for Constitution discussions:
(1) Power of legislature,executive,judicial.
(pro)
(con)
(jus)
(pro)=comments of those who agree
(con)=comments of those who disagree
(jus)=Writer's justification of Constitutional
Power or Restriction or Right.
The Webmaster would have to make (pro)(con)(jus)
buttons available to drag to the proper spot.
(Tom if you dont understand this email me ,I will
explain it.)
Philosophy is fine, but when discussing government,Details are important, so that weaknessess can be determined.
Loopholes, a word that Always arises when discussing Law.Government will Always look for Loopholes to Enlarge their Power,Overcome Restrictions and Ignore Your Rights.
As we write, it is important to write of the Details, but to keep the Details seperate, so as not to confuse the Central Idea.
The Devil is in the Details...
Joel,
I appreciate your post, and your call to keep to basics. In fact, that call to basics has greatly revised this post.
I've been thinking a lot about property tax the last few days, and how you have proposed it should work in your model. After working out a number of arguments against your proposal, I finally realized that the crux of my disagreement is with the premise of your argument for property tax, which I understand to be the following:
Government is responsible to protect the personal property contained within the nation through defensive military action when necessary.
This seems to be in direct contradiction to the premise upon which I understand the New Constitution of Liberty is based:
Government is responsible to protect the fundamental rights of the individual citizen.
If the entire premise of the existence of the ideal state is to defend the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property, then the government must stick to that specific responsibility--to protect those rights. Once the state takes upon itself the responsibility the citizen has for his private property, that property is no longer private. I believe the very heart of ownership is responsibility--and that above all else must be held inviolate.
Whichever angle you choose to look at the argument, the ultimate action of the military defensively speaking is roughly the same. However, if you state that the military is defending the actual dirt and structures owned by the citizenry, (and merchandise, furnishings, cars, jewelry and stereo equipment--all of which are property, and therefore laid open to tax under that definition), the privacy and security of the citizen in his property is laid open to intrusion by the government in the form of tax assessments, disclosure requirements, registration, etc. Given no clearly defined protection for his responsibility to his property, the citizen is given the burden of proof, and the cards are stacked against him in any dispute with the government. Handling defense as a proportional cost when the benefits are uniform is in no way equitable. (Citizens paying varying amounts for the same degree of protection of their fundamental rights.) Reasoning that one citizen has more fundamental rights than another simply because he owns more property than another citizen just doesn't wash.
If you choose to look at the defense of the country as the defense of fundamental rights, then the interests of the property owner are protected in that the government is reminded again that the citizen stands between the government and private property.
I see government as the mother of all user-fee based services--literally. (Not only is it the first user fee based service complete with a universal user base, but it has the ability to "give birth", if you will, to smaller and more specialized services upon sufficient demand.) We both agree that anyone who wishes to benefit from the advantages of government must pay for those benefits. You can go with the "basic service", defined as those services which by their very nature benefit all citizens uniformly, or you can subscribe to additional services as you see fit and as they are available.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that military defense is by its very nature something from which everyone benefits--you can't defend the fundamental rights of one citizen without protecting the same rights of all others--hence my inclusion of defense in the "basic services" of government. Therefore defense must be paid for equally by all citizens, since the rights of every citizen are defended by that military force.
Patriot Mother,
Remember that it is not "government" in general that is being funded in part by property taxes, but the *military*. The primary purpose of the military, as I understand it, is to defend the nation against military conquest. There are two aspects to this defense: protecting the lives of the people, and protecting the territory of the nation as a whole (or in parts, as from bombs). Thus you cannot separate the purpose of the military from the property of the nation.
Obviously, partial funding of the military should be through a uniform head tax -- equal for all citizens since all receive the same defense of their lives. But since the military exists in part to defend the property of the nation (taken in general terms meaning land and the structures on it), it should be funded in part through property taxes. These taxes should be based first on the amount of property (since a person who owns 100 acres has claim to a greater proportion of defense than one who owns 1/2 acre), and second on the *general* degree to which the land is developed (from an economic functionality standpoint). This is because a factory has greater intrinsic value to the nation than a residence, and thus requires a greater degree of defense.
Of course, we are only talking about general military defense, not defense from burglary, vandalism, or theft -- that falls under the category of police or other protection, which people can opt in or out of. But general military protection is something that all receive by virtue of being part of the country, and thus should be funded through taxes -- head taxes and property taxes.
Celeste,
I think, upon further reflection, I'm beginning to see how the two premises can be reconciled--although I still do not think property taxes are the answer. It lies in the definition of "military". I was proceeding from the assumption that the military was part of government. If the military is made up of citizens (as opposed to full-time soldiers, and some reservists, as it is now) it becomes something other than the tyrant's tool--it becomes his enemy. Therefore, the citizen's responsibility to protect his property remains intact, and the government is kept in check by virtue of the largely independent nature of the man power present in the militia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If a military model could be constructed which closely followed the principles of the founder's militia (with concessions made for current technology, of course) I believe that property rights could be protected. But we're still left with the issue of property tax--which is coercive, invades privacy, and has proven throughout history to be one of the worst predators of fundamental rights.
I haven't yet done all the research I need to do in order to understand all the why's and wherewithal's as to property tax's inherent evils. However, Earl's two posts above provide some excellent starting points, and lay bare the very heart of the problem: are citizens actually property owners, or are they feofees?
Patriot Mother,
I must strongly disagree with your whole approach of trying to separate the defense of physical property from the right to property. They cannot be separated. If I have a right to property, then I have a right to defend it, physically. If I have a right to defend it, then I have a right to band together in a governmental compact to share costs more efficiently with others who wish to defend their rights. As a further extension, I have a right to join with the body of citizens as a whole and agree to a fair taxing structure to require all direct beneficiaries of the national defense to fund such defense in a way directly related to people and property protected. There will always be controversies about how to spend the money, and we must carefully draft restrictions on military force so that its never violates the basic mandate to enter into battle except to defend fundamental rights of its citizens.
For example, the military would not be able to be used to defend the rights of non-citizens outside the country, no matter how great the need. They could do so as volunteers, with volunteer contributions for armaments, but they can't use general defense funds for defending others--unless the threat to others was also a direct threat to our nation.
While I agree with the basic structure of a militia based defense system, in today's world of mega weapons, many billions of dollars must be spend in advance on high tech weaponry to deter and defend against heavily armed and aggressive enemies. The kind of individual "insurance" system that would be appropriate at the local police level or at the level of fire protection is not suitable for a national military. Factionalism and people's refusal to see danger until it is too late would make a nation easy prey to aggression.
Lastly, it is not true that allowing a military to protect physical property gives them control over property--those are two separate issues that don't necessarily lead from one to the other--especially if we draft constitutional prohibitions carefully restricting martial law provisions that are often used to take property rights during time of war.
Joel
My two cents regarding taxes is that there should be no tax on property so that man may live securely on his land ; and no taxman, money-changer, or mortgage holder could chase him away .
A little tax on fuel could cover all expenses of road/bridge construction and maintenance ; and even the costs and wages of a small government . Plus, to facilitate trade, the government would have to spend into circulation government-issued money which could pay for many things and lower the need for taxation .
As for cost of the military, I do not know what exactly to do, but have the feeling that if governments were sovereign there would be less warring and need for weaponry .
Property taxes do not give the government authority over your land. If you read Joel's writings on the principles of liberty, it is clear that government is strictly limited in its authority over private property. Taxes in some forms are obviously necessary for the financing of government operations, and tying the tax directly to the service provided by government (as in property taxes being tied to military defense of property) is the surest way to both provide well-defined limits to the extent of taxation, and allow the greatest amount of resistance to increases in that taxation. Bear in mind, also, that in the system that Joel is proposing, anyone who is unable or unwilling to pay their property taxes (or any other type of taxes) would be given ample opportunity under law to work off the fees, and thus avoid prison time or confiscation of their land. Nobody likes taxes, I know, but we have to be realistic in defining the right and proper vehicles and limits of taxation. I believe property taxes, given well-defined limitations in terms of what government services they are to finance, would not be an unreasonable burden on the people in the context of the principles of government that are being proposed.
Joel,
It was never my intention to argue against the rights of individuals to defend their property--only to present arguments against the use of property tax to facilitate defense.
Property tax is fundamentally contrary to the right to property. It requires complete invasion of privacy for assessment, a bureaucracy for collection and distribution, and penalties for non-payment; which makes it coercive. If you own something, you should own it--not just get to use it so long as you make sure to pay somebody else. (Which reminds me strikingly of the classic "protection policies" of thugs.)
It's not that proportional payment isn't equitable--it's that exacting it through property tax is wrong when held up against the litmus test of property rights.
"Concessions to current technology" (please see my above post) allows for the weaponry needed for defense in a militia-based model, be it nukes or hand grenades. Enough said.
From your post:
"If I have a right to defend it, then I have a right to band together in a governmental compact to share costs more efficiently with others who wish to defend their rights."
[Right. Although, this sounds like something that could easily be privatized, since it would lend itself to the subscription model.]
" As a further extension, I have a right to join with the body of citizens as a whole . . ."
[Still right.]
. . . and agree to a fair taxing structure to require all direct beneficiaries of the national defense to fund such defense . . ."
Here's where I beg to differ. "Require" in this case means coercion--it implies that there isn't unanimous consent in this case, but a majority who wants to impose their will on the minority. If something is genuinely unanimous, then the citizenry as a whole will do whatever they all agree on--without requirement.
If my neighbor decides to get a huge watch dog, which barks raucously at the approach of anyone it doesn't know (including people on my side of the fence) I'm a direct beneficiary to my neighbor's purchase, since I will check my yard when I hear their dog bark, and the last thing anyone with shady intent wants is an announcement of their arrival. Should I be required to pay a portion of the dog's purchase price and upkeep, since I'm directly benefiting from it? The numbers after a dollar sign don't change the underlying principle here. Money doesn't determine whether or not someone's property rights are violated.
If the citizenry unanimously agrees that they want to pay property tax, that's fine. (I however, doubt that will occur.) But I do not agree that it should start out as a power given to the government; for, without fail, a power allowed is a power abused. Other ways exist to supply the defensive force necessary for a nation.
If this discussion forum is meant to be a model for seeing if your framework works, I'm thinking property tax (regardless of what it will fund) is one point on which people, such as myself, just won't budge. In order for any of the framework to be valuable, unanimous consent must be earned--and this is a breaking point.
To sum up:
There are two problems with the property tax power given in the New Constitution:
1. Property tax directly interferes with the fundamental right to property.
2. Unanimous consent will not be earned if the state is given the power to lay property tax. And just because the state exists does not give it power to use the tyranny of the majority to violate property rights by exacting funds from citizens without their consent.
Celeste,
I have read Joel's writings on the principles of liberty, and I agree, it is clear that government is strictly limited in its authority over private property. However, the government still has plenty enough power over private property to trample all over that right.
" . . . and tying the tax directly to the service provided by government (as in property taxes being tied to military defense of property) is the surest way to both provide well-defined limits to the extent of taxation, and allow the greatest amount of resistance to increases in that taxation."
It sounds like you are describing user fees, not taxes.
"Bear in mind, also, that in the system that Joel is proposing, anyone who is unable or unwilling to pay their property taxes (or any other type of taxes) would be given ample opportunity under law to work off the fees, and thus avoid prison time or confiscation of their land."
I have borne it in mind, and forced labor is still a violation of property rights. An individual's body is private property, and the labor thereof more of the same. Whether labor or cash is the payment, it is payment nonetheless.
"Nobody likes taxes, I know, but we have to be realistic in defining the right and proper vehicles and limits of taxation."
Exactly--I'm representing the realistic opposition to property taxes that exists all throughout this country, and that will surface with loud voices and will not be swayed when the current government collapses under its own weight.
"I believe property taxes, given well-defined limitations in terms of what government services they are to finance, would not be an unreasonable burden on the people in the context of the principles of government that are being proposed."
Your belief does not alter the fact that the individuals will decide what is an "unreasonable burden . . . in the context of the principles of government that are being proposed" when it comes to taxes. Remember that when this proposed government is brought before individuals, it must earn unanimous consent if it is to ever be used. As I already stated, I am but one of many property tax opponents; you only have to read other posts on this forum for further examples.
If we can figure out another way to take care of defense, it will save precious time later, when this proposal is actually put forth; time that could prove its undoing. Joel has a lot of good things going in his proposal--to that their is no doubt. However, he asked for criticism to test and try that system--and that's what's happening.
Pay the Property Tax or we will throw you in Jail.
That is not what Freedom and Liberty is about.
With a Sales Tax there is no Jail for failure to pay.That difference alone, makes a Sales tax a preferred method of Taxation.
Earl,
Sales tax is still coercive through penalties for non-payment, violates the privacy of business owners, and constitutes an income tax on business revenue, not to mention artificially skewing the market. The lesser of two evils is by no means the preferred choice--for it is still evil nonetheless.
Remember, sales tax doesn't affect the consumer too much--it's the merchant it preys upon. If any business chooses not to pay this form of income tax, that business will lose either its right or ability to buy and sell, which is an extension of property rights.
There IS another way. We just have to learn enough about the free market and individual sovereignty to understand what that way is, and apply it meaningfully.
The other way is Voluntary;ie no Enforcing system and no Accounting system and no Penalty system of Accepting Money into Trust accounts
which are then dispursed to pay for Projects,
of which 10% goes to general Administration of government; Courts ,Defense,Police.
Patriot Mother, Earl
You both continue to make the mistake of interpreting the concept property tax in terms of current enforcement and assessment. My proposed use of property tax to fund national defense is not like anything heretofore proposed, so don't make assumptions based upon the present system. We are working on a new, ideal system, so don't tag it with garbage that doesn't apply. We aren't having to buy an existing package deal. We can construct our own implementation to make it fair and just.
Second, you have to get over this notion that a person should be free to own property with no strings attach, and with no payment to common defense.
If you agree with my basic theory of tying taxes to the entities directly related to those government funds, than you can't exclude property taxes. Property has a cost involved in defense and protection--and NOT simply a local cost, either. If you can't get over this fetish about property not paying any portion of tax, then you're left with a head tax, which would then become exceedingly burdensome on poor people with small or no property holdings. If you have a huge head tax, you're going to induce a cry from the people to start to tax people differently--and they always look to income. Remember, one of the key things about transferring government costs to the 3 areas of USER FEES, PROPERTY, and HEAD TAX is that it allows for taxation to have some income related component, (the holding of various degrees of property and the amount of government services you use--a type of public consumption tax) without taxing income directly or intruding upon privacy.
Going back to the issue of "everyone protecting his own property--exclusively" as you propose, this just isn't realistic in any real world scenario filled with evil threats. There never has existed a society who was successful in defending itself by each person voluntarily deciding if he or she was going to join in a common defense. People are too selfish and myopic to see and prepare against long-term threats. Even when an invasion starts, they won't participate until the invasion is at their door, so the country gets conquered piecemeal. So if you persist in this concept, you've got to show me how it will work in with today's real-world threats. If you work out the details of this and look at the historical disasters that occurred in the Revolutionary war and civil war, you can never come to a conclusion that supports a non-compulsory national defense tax that you are proposing. And if you agree for the need for a national defense tax, then it would be too expensive per person as a head tax. It would also be unjustly ill distributed relative to the national properties (including huge factories and commercial facilities, as well as the variety of residences that need defending).
I think you also are too enamored with the militia concept as the cure all for military threats to liberty. A militia solution (if that's all you have) is only effective on local threats. In today's big bad world, we must fund in advance of trouble, a highly sophisticated core Armed force, that can be quickly augmented with militia ground forces when needed. The Israeli armed forces is a good example of a mixed militia/full time core force that is an effective force (although it doesn't have the necessary restrictions on military power we need). We have to develop in another thread ways to restrict military power above the militia level without simply abandoning an effective national army.
A Navy, And Landbased ICBM's,Sub-based ICBM's,and Bombers equipped with nuclear missles, And the State organized and unorganized Militias, are all of the Defense we need.
Earl,
Your answer doesn't address the issue. I agree we need major strategic weapons systems, beyond a mere militia force of soldiers. My point is that such national systems can never be adequately or fairly funded by any tax other than a tax linked directly to the people and property protected as a whole--that equates to a head tax and a property tax for national defense. Those are the two items protected by these assets.