We have featured on these very pages defenses of property tax. Which I actually find to be the most perverse of all taxes. Even above an income tax. Why is this so? I believe in letting people live the life they want, even if I disagree with it. In this case I’m going to defend that mortal enemy of all libertarians, the communist.
As stated, I am fine with people living their own life as they see fit. I am also fine with looking down at those who I disagree with, without using the force of government against them. My personal feelings should have no bearing on the best way to govern people. Just that such government should afford maximum freedom without letting anyone harm anyone else’s freedom.
I detest the idea of communism, but I am perfectly fine if someone wants to live that way, so long as I am not forced to. So how then can we have a government which protects both my freedom and the freedom of a
communist? That would be a government that allows communists to, you know, live freely in communes.
But under a society with a property tax, those dirty hippies are forced to interact with filthy capitalist pig dogs to attain the lucre to pay the property tax on the commune. The government won’t accept a 9 hr acid fueled drum circle as payment, I think.
An income tax or consumption tax wouldn’t force these lazy bastards to interact with capitalism at all, since working for profit and purchasing capitalist goods are TOTALLY what they are against. They’d be free to eat beet root and devolve into their natural cycle of abuse of power without any intervention from abusive capitalists. And that is their right.
Interesting take. I’ve been watching Russell Brand videos, and it seems like he’s pretty left/communist, but he does say in almost every video that he wants a system where people can form their own smaller communities that reflect the way they want to live. Which is exactly what you’re saying here. So maybe this is common ground that all people who aren’t statist assholes can agree on.
Also, first AND on topic, which is how I roll.
You know nothing The Other Kevin.
Easy there, Ygritte.
Oh dude, now you conjured up a mental image of Bro seducing Jon Snow. That is not a pretty picture.
Right? Back off, bitch.
At least the Bro is on top
Except the whole point of communism is to control everyone else – even and especially those not already in the club.
Well, SOMEBODY has to be forced to pay for them to live the way they want!
That’s as much a legacy of the French Revolution as anything.
I count property taxes and income taxes as equally/utterly immoral and perverse. So I’m with you on that.
Without trying to explain it all here, my short version is I could OK with certain kinds of transactional taxes or “crossing the border” taxes. And even a poll tax (the original meaning – per head) in some ways, though that one’s a lot touchier.
It is purely emotional — but I loathe inheritance tax or any sort of “death tax”. You already taxed the shit out of everything in sight someone’s whole life… and the government mob shows up to wet its beak just because someone died. Opportunistic f’ing vultures.
And to add insult to injury they’re often used to push small businesses / farms / whatnot out of the market in favor of “Immortal” state approved companies.
But back on topic — yeah, people should most certainly be able to live as small-c commies as much as they want. Harking back to the State Senate discussions the other day — if the government were more federal all the way down such that people *could* escape the tentacles of Leviathan by buying enough land out in the sticks to form their small c commune and try things out we’d have more political laboratories in the country. So more power to them and less power to the bloody state power structure would be my vote.
And they’ll get right on that after the Unicorn Disbursement Act of 2025, I’m sure.
–but I loathe inheritance tax or any sort of “death tax”.
I do too, but I would make one exception. On death, you owe your share of the National Debt. First off the top of your estate. Anything beyond that is your heirs to keep.
It is $91,835 right now. It would be a very recessive tax.
My “moderate idea” is an exemption of some amount, then a tax at some reasonable rate until that amount of tax is reached.
The problem with that is any decent sized exemption would collect no money from most estates.
I guess a 3rd option would be like a 10% death tax up to $918,350. So you would collect a little something from most estates.
Fuck that. I had no part of creating it. If by some miracle I have something to pass on, every penny should go where I so choose.
It wouldn’t actually reduce the debt, so what’s the point?
Going back to my first proposal, yeah, I don’t see why the US Government can’t be thrown in with any other unsecured debt owners.
So it wouldn’t even be a tax, it would just be unsecured debt the estate owes. And for most estates, it would go unpaid.
Only the amount that the national debt was expanded during my lifetime. (or say due to voting ages 18 up). How can I be responsible for debts that were incured before I could possibly affect them via suffrage?
But still wealth taxes are always a non starter.. The government doesn’t want wealth, they want a percentage of GDP, ie income. In small amounts (a single person’s death) there is enough liquidity that the market can convert the wealth to income. In large mounts (like the tax Bezos plans) You can’t do anything with the assets of 5% of Amazon… those warehouses and equipment are doing the best thing they can for the economy. Selling them off will just contract GDP.
–Only the amount that the national debt was expanded during my lifetime. (or say due to voting ages 18 up).
Sure, I am fine with that. At the rate in increased, that is a small difference.
Taxes/government impositions on our time are the worst of all. In theory, you can make more marginal dollars; you can’t make more marginal time.
I listened to a couple podcast interviews with a couple professors who claim to be the leading Marxist economics thinkers. One was very bad and incoherent, the other was much more articulate and humble and was able to talk about Marx’s later works, which he claims show Marx’s growth by recognizing some of the blindspots he had early on. Neither really addressed the atrocities committed in the name of communism, but the latter at least recognized that communism is a utopian dream and not completely feasible in the real world.
I became frustrated by the interviewer’s lack of obvious follow-up questions. My primary question revolved around this post’s point, which is that communes can exist in a capitalist society, but capitalists cannot exist in a communist society. When they would talk about the workers’ communes, they never addressed my question, which is what would happen in a communist society if the workers of a factory voted for a particular action, and some of the workers who disagreed decided to leave and establish a competing factory? Would that be allowed? If it would be in their ideal communist society, then isn’t that free market capitalism?
I’d love to engage in a good faith discussion with a communist, and they are out there, but they are rare.
Marxist economics thinkers
Well there’s a contradiction in terms.
communes can exist in a capitalist society, but capitalists cannot exist in a communist society
This is a great point.
What happened? I blacked out.
STEVE SMITH visit?
Every communist/socialist I’ve met was an economically immature (and frequently just plain immature) individual. They had yet to truly participate in the workforce on any meaningful level outside of a work study program or hopping from retail job to retail job. Not having any skills, or desire to learn any skills, they just wanted to have an out of the workforce. They scream the loudest for the system that would bury them the fastest since they tend to be non-producers.
Communal life is all but certain to break down within a generation absent an overweening religious commitment on the part of the community members.
But I’m not sure why a property tax is bad – considering that govt is instituted in the first place to secure property rights. Are you really saying that those who benefit from property shouldn’t pay for the mechanism that secures that property?
I would rather get an itemized bill for services ‘rendered’ and pay the bill directly.
Ah, a consumer of government services – as though you have a choice.
Secure property rights have beneficial second and third order effects that benefit everyone, including those who don’t own a particular piece of real property. I would also say that the proper role of government is to secure individual rights, of which property rights are a subset.
Property also includes more than just real property, and personal property taxes are impossible to administer based on the actual value of any person’s personal property. A real property tax is unequally applied (and thus creates distortions) if the goal is to make the people who own property fund the protection of their property rights.
Finally, government does a whole lot more than secure property rights, so why should the beneficiaries of a fraction of what the government does fund all the government’s activities?
A “sales tax” on original purchase of an object could pay for the police/court protection of that item – sort of a one time insurance premium. “from each according to his wants” is much better than “from each according to his needs.”
Everyone lives on property, so everyone pays property tax, whether directly or indirectly, so it suffices to run the government and is justifiable as being levied on everyone.
I just reject the argument that “I’m gonna put a gun to your head and steal some of your property, and you should recognized that as me protecting your property” is illogical bullshit. It’s inherently untrue.
Opps, my first sentence was mistyped. I reject the argument behind that made up quote BECAUSE it’s illogical bullshit.
Your alternative is employ only your own force (and morality) to the preservation of your property.
That’s going to cost you more.
No, it just means that if the State wants to claim they’re doing that (as one of their only legitimate functions) then they have to fund it in ways that aren’t plain theft. Hence the others I mentioned upthread. (And my first comment wasn’t meant to sound as harsh as it might – was running off to exercise.)
What purely voluntary means should the state employ to sustain itself?
Where did I say purely voluntary? That’s ridiculous once one backs away from the keyboard and tries to describe how a State would/could actually work, and we all know it.
Not going to pretend there’s such a thing.
To quote myself above: “Without trying to explain it all here, my short version is I could (be) OK with certain kinds of transactional taxes or “crossing the border” taxes. And even a poll tax (the original meaning – per head) in some ways, though that one’s a lot touchier.”
That’s how it has to pay for itself.
Oh I can see the States just loving a “crossing the border” tax.
Where did I say purely voluntary? — I’m gonna put a gun to your head and steal some of your property
That’s a pretty good definition of a tax – collected under coercion (or threat thereof). Whether it be on real property, income, purchase of consumer goods, what have you.
Property tax means you can’t actually own property. All you can do is rent your land from the government. Don’t pay your rent and the government takes your property. Sure doesn’t sound like protecting property rights to me
^^^This guy gets it.
Bingo – one of the reasons my old man sold his lake front house – it was his primary residence after he retired – is because of the high property taxes that would have to be carried by my brothers and I. With two brothers out of state, and my limited interest in that area (I want to move down South when EF retires) there was no reason to keep the property. Ideally – without taxes – it could have been kept “in the family” though upkeep would have fallen on me.
I can explain my problem with it, from a TX perspective. Right now I pay $550 a month in property tax. I am in my later 50’s. By the time I wish to retire, my tax (based on property value) it will be $800 a month. That basically means I always have to work, or find somewhere else to live. Once my house is paid off and I am retired, my tax burden should not be that extreme. I will no longer have school age kids, I have contributed significantly to society, and taxes should fuck off a bit.
The progs despise Prop 13 in California, which states that your valuation for property tax purposes is fixed at the purchase price for the current owner.
However, if they were to get rid of it, it would immediately make countless elderly homeless.
It’s worth listening to the latest Part of the Problem with Pete Quinones.
They criticize the individualist/collectivist dichotomy as being the wrong thing to focus on as libertarians are wont to do. Voluntary/involuntary is their alternative and if you want to voluntarily participate in a commune, so be it. I’m vastly oversimplifying the argument, but that was a significant portion of it.
Besides, if you’re in a political party like the LP, that’s a collective.
It was a good interview. I was kind of getting tired of Pete, but I thought he was much better with Dave.
but I thought he was much better with Dave
Agreed
if you want to voluntarily participate in a commune – that is not collectivism.
Sure it is. You take collective action whenever you agree to act with a group regardless of personal agreement on every issue.
Political parties are inherently collective in nature. Communes are also.
Communism is collectivist but in general not voluntary, or at least not for very long.
just like communism, I don’t see collectivism as voluntary. If it is voluntary it is individualism, because individuals can go on another path
I think we’re arguing past each other.
i think words matter and I have never heard of collectivism (not collective ) being voluntary cause if it is what is the point? all people join various collectives.
What is collectivism if not the idea that collectives can accomplish things that individuals cannot achieve on their own?
The point being that we engage in collective action all the time, the question is only whether we do so voluntarily.
collectivism means the individual is secondary to the group whether they like it or not.
“collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.”
And if you voluntarily submit yourself to a collective under those terms? The military comes to mind. Families are another, and quite often not even voluntary.
I think the definition is lacking in the same way that I think individualism, although valuable, is not the solution to everything.
And if you voluntarily submit yourself to a collective under those terms? – then it is not collectivism
We disagree, Fair enough.
i fell you are just using words wrong, which is a major issue in modern debate, but I will leave it at that.
It’s severalism.
“We have featured on these very pages defenses of property tax.”
Really? I havent seen that.
Admittedly, most of the defense came from you, but it was there.
Nope, I oppose property tax.
Land tax is a property tax.
Slap a different name on it, it’s still the same tax.
Land tax is a subset, I will grant that. But it has such differences with the superset as to be entirely different, morally.
An income tax or consumption tax wouldn’t force these lazy bastards to interact with capitalism at al – this is not true. Yes the property tax hurts the few who want to live off the grid completely. But income tax hurts much more people, including those very same people, who need to be constantly under surveillance and audited to see if they have any income to be taxed. A government which taxes income does not take your word you don’t have any.
And as Wickard made clear, they might even be forced to pay consumption tax on food they raise, as it is still a part of interstate commerce.
Wickard is hardly a good presentation of first principles, though it is a wonderful cautionary tale on slippery slopes.
I don’t mind commies existing, either, so long as they don’t interfere with me. And yes – property taxes mean you can never truly own property. It always belongs to the State. That’s some fucked up shit right there.
Also the title of the post is wrong as what you are describing is not communism. COmmunism is not forming your own commune, which people can already do. It is overthrowing capitalism at a society wide level.
I guess technically what CPRM describes would more accurately be described as communalism rather than communism. Since you are one of the few people on this board actually from a post-Communist country you do probably have a better sense for what communism is.
Two dozen cookies out of the oven, fifteen more baking, still got dough left for the lemon cranberry. I think I’ll take a break after baking these up before moving on to the other type. Turns out I need a new carry container for road tripping, so I’ll have to go back to the store.
You’re bringing seventeen dozen cookies?
Nope.
I’m at 45 cookies from this recipe, will take a break as the bowl is soaking, buy a second carry container, and bake the other recipe.
So far I haven’t lost any to QA, but some assurances will be required…
I was going to bring the rye that won the rankings, but my LLS doesn’t have it anymore. I’ll get another acceptable hooch. Also, local foodstuffs.
If people don’t like it, OMWC can put it on the specials board.
24 is easier to type than two dozen.
Also baking cookies is for chicks. Real men make croissants
There are real men in France?
I have two bottles of wine and whatever Mrs. Time bakes. By the way I posted this in the Forum:
Hello all:
I was thinking of bringing some stickers and a sharpie to put at the door.
Hello My Name is:
Timeloose (AKA REAL NAME)
Of course NONE of YOUR BUSINESS is an acceptable name.
Will there be pre-printed Tulpa and Poppy options? 🙂
I am Poppy.
and so is your wife
I won’t be there, but any reason for real names? I would be fine with calling people by their handles.
Of course, if you want to dox yourself, knock yourself out.
I’m thinking of first names. I know several already, but don’t use them on line.
There will be some non-Glibs there as well.
NOT OF THE BODY! NOT OF THE BODY!
Glibdru shall absorb them.
Yeah I think a whole bunch of Glib handles doxes OMWC and WebDom to the locals.
On the other hand, if we really want to freak the locals out, we all use our handles – prefixed with either Brother or Sister.
“Greetings, Brother JI! Taxation is theft! Am I being detained?”
The mix of others would be the hard part. I was thinking of how confusing it might be if I was looking for Warty Hugeman and asked a random person if they saw Warty or a guy who looks like a Hugeman?
I also foresee a lot of locals receiving the “what are you a cop” as a response to “hi I’m jane and you are?”
“Nice try, Fed”
I am unable to attend but if I were there mine would definitely read Rusty Shackleford
Maybe I will wear a pin or armband?
secret hand shake or challenge questions?
“Hello are you here for the free lunch……”
“TANSTAAFL!!!!”
“Norm Huddleston, Network Sales, damn glad to meet you”.
I (sadly) won’t be able to attend either, but a lot of people call me Animal in meatspace. Including Mrs. Animal. I’ve been dragging this nickname around since about 1985.
Don’t know how common that kind of thing is.
Since I physically interact with people in the Burning man community, I’m answer pretty readily to my handle (not JI) there.
… a lot of people call me Animal in meatspace. Including Mrs. Animal.
Braggart.
If you got a horse, you ride it.
I’m a Ted, and my surname begins with S.
Income Tax and Consumption Tax are taxes on our work. Either is a form of slavery. Same for Property Tax, in general.
Land Tax, or more specifically, the Single Land Tax is a tax on something that Obama was literally right about — “You didn’t build that”.
Short of anarchy, I don’t see a way to not tax.
It would be nice to let the dirty hippies have their commune, but if don’t want protection from Echo Company of the 2nd Regiment (call back to morning links) taking over their kibbutz, they will have to have minimal interaction with the rest of us.
What if you did build it?
Like those islands in the South China Sea?
You didn’t build the South China Sea. The land existed, you just removed the water from on top of it.
it would be taxed at sea value, that is the unimproved rate.
Same for half of The Netherlands.
But as governments tend to do, they tax you at the improved rate, regardless of the fact it was your capital that improved it.
Yes, but that is the difference between a Land Tax and a Property Tax. A Land Tax is on the unimproved value.
Of course, it depends on who does the “building”. If the government builds the sea wall and maintains the pumps, that is the exact justification for taxing the land.
Land Tax, or more specifically, the Single Land Tax is a tax on something that Obama was literally right about — “You didn’t build that”.
But you aren’t taxing the land. You are taxing the owner of the land for claiming the bundle of rights that we call “fee title”. We actually did build that.
I still think the end of the road for SLT is the government outright owning a whole lot of real property, and the vast majority of people being tenants of the government. Which is a real back-to-the-future of feudalism, and right in line with the WEF program.
You have said that before, but I don’t see how it follows.
Does the property tax do that? As I said above, the Property Tax is a superset of the Land Tax, so it should have all the negatives of the land tax, plus its own. But that one doesn’t seem to have happened.
Although if you look at the amount of government land…but that arent renting it out.
A single land tax would be much higher than current property taxes, since it would have to fund the whole of government. People can afford to pay the current property tax. Make it one or two orders of magnitude higher, and not many people can afford to pay it. So, the government seizes it or liens it.
Now we turn to the market for land. All land is burdened by the SLT, and it is a heavy burden indeed. How big a market would there be for something carrying that kind of perpetual liability? Given a choice between paying for the land, and paying the SLT, why not just rent the land from the government? That way, you don’t have capital at risk. So the private market for land ownership is going to shrink, if not evaporate altogether. End game: the government’s revenue shifts from SLT to ground lease payments. Bonus: as the ground lessor, the government can micromanage what is done on the property, so it has that incentive to keep and rent out the land it acquires, as well.
Now, if you start with a small, minarchist government, you can delay this process because more people will be able to afford the SLT.
I assume it would work like now, where the government sells the liens, and the lienholders are responsible for collecting or foreclosing on the property. So the property should remain in private hands.
I assume it would work like now, where the government sells the liens, and the lienholders are responsible for collecting or foreclosing on the property.
If they foreclose, they are on the hook for the SLT, so I doubt that will happen. If the lien is dischargable in bankrutpcy, its not going to be worth much, and the sale of it won’t generate revenue for the government. If its not dischargable in bankruptcy, then the private real property market is going to be even further reduced.
So I think there’s a good chance the government just takes ownership and ground leases it to the occupants.
The SLT is limited to the amount of land rents, estimates vary, but I think in the 3-5% range. That is higher than property tax rate, but on a much lower appraised amount. 4% of a 50k lot is less than 1% of a 500k home, for example. And that isn’t even considering that income tax and sales tax and excise tax and etc, all go to zero. So even if the SLT is a little larger than current property tax (as it would be on some properties), its a net benefit.
It would REQUIRE a small, minarchist government, as it is the sole form of revenue (besides any service fees). The SINGLE part of the SLT assumes the size of government.
The SLT is limited to the amount of land rents,
Says who?
It would REQUIRE a small, minarchist government,
If we had a small, minarchist government, the way it raised revenue would be of relatively little importance. And we aren’t getting such a government, so . . . .
“Says who?”
Henry George.
How many divisions does Mr. George have?
15, as it turns out.
Who knew?
File under 🚁
Keep in mind that some communes are apparently smarter then the voters of Vermont.
It isn’t that different – Vermont voters get him out of the state and he bothers DC more than he bothers them.
Paying a Tax on something you bought is not in of itself a problem with me, well it is, but not my primary objection. The problem is that property tax is not a tax on the property you purchased, it is a tax that has to be paid in perpetuity as long as you own said property or else it is taken away. It is open to arbitrary increases and changes based on current values of the property, not on the original price paid, and the use of the tax is not defined as support of protecting your property rights.
I want to define a financial vehicle that would provide an upfront flat fee to the municipality in lieu of yearly taxes. This fee would cover the ownership of the property until it is sold. It would be paid for as part of the home or property mortgage and once paid off there would be no yearly cost to the owner. The financial company gets an interest payment and the municipality get large lump sums.
Benefits:
Once you own your property it cant be taken away for tax non-payment ever
Grandmas on a fixed income will not see a huge increase in taxes after re-assessments
True long term ownership of land and homes by families would become much stronger
There would be many problems with such an arrangement:
There would have to be an escrow account set aside by the municipality to pay back the owner a % if the property was sold before some maturity date
Upfront costs would increase
Home sales would be encouraged by the municipality after the maturity date similar to the many “rent controlled housing landlord bad guys from movies”
This might make moving to find a better paying job even harder
Thoughts? I haven’t though deeply on this, it is just the result of brainstorming after reading this article and discussing school taxes with my 80 year old dad.
You could combine this with the Single Land Tax in some ways. I would have to think thru all the implications.
The single tax is very similar to what I was thinking about, but I added a third party that could pay either upfront like a loan or possibly in perpetuity like a trust. The issue is if paid by a trust, the trust would have to account for possible increases in the future and need to be an investment vehicle as well.
I’m sure rich folks already have something like the trust for large family property investments (Land Trusts).
Why would the SLT increase (or its equivalent) ?.. it is supposed to be the inherent value to the bare land with zero improvements/capital existing. I suppose there could be an inflation “hedge” given a fiat currency.
Everyone treats the property tax as an income task and makes sure that the trust investments can generate the % of income that the current locality requires.
I understand that a SLT are not supposed to change. I’m also aware that getting a municipality or state change to one for properties would be difficult. I’m looking for a workaround, which is a sign the current system is broken. I’m looking for a way of assuring life long security from loosing your house and absorbing the damage from arbitrary increases.
It would change as the area around it changes. Adjacent improvements could alter the value of the land. If your land in the middle of Iowa magically got transplanted to the middle of Manhattan, despite you adding no improvements, the value of the land would increase dramatically.
It is a slower process, but same occurs on the outskirts of cities as they grow.
It is a feature/big of the SLT, but it encourages land to be used at its highest use. If you are paying “great place for a shopping center” taxes, it doesn’t make sense to farm it.
Rob, then it is not a bare land tax (unimproved land), it is an adjacency to capital/wealth tax. Hence a proxy tax on other people’s wealth. This is then worse than the regular property tax. I have land where I have done nothing.. but my neighbor has improved his land, raising my taxes, but not his. In addition, it then has all of the arbitrary relative valuations, there is no absolute value.. being next to a golf course it wonderful for some.. and hell for others. The SLT math required that it be set absolutely to the economic optimum, or the excess burden is high. The idea was that the land value was “inherent”.. but now it isn’t inherent.. it is because somebody did something nice nearby.
I believe that this has led to many NIMBY zoning rules. No I will not allow them to build that golf course, or more housing and shops. That would increase my taxes more then I receive in benefits. This town was perfect when I moved in, no changes. Except, I can improve my house of course.
That land can’t be moved from Iowa to manhattan, but you are saying that the value of the manhattan land isn’t because if where it is. but because others have placed millions of capital next to it. Your rich neighbors then control, and you need to move out..
Once you own your property it cant be taken away for tax non-payment ever
So how long does the govt have to uphold your right to that property? How is that funded?
The funding was done upfront. So never, unless you sell the property.
You aren’t going to like that upfront charge. It might be equal or greater than the price you are paying for the property.
We pay minimal property tax compared to most for our modest house and 3 acres, up to about $1500/yr now (up from about $900/yr ten years ago when we bought it. Doing the math in rough numbers – so far we’ve paid about $12,000. Since the tax will keep going up over the next 20 years, let’s assume the average yearly tax is $2k over 30 years. That’s $60k we’ll pay over 30 years, or just under 30% of the purchase price. If that were the up front sales tax (which is essentially what is being described) it wouldn’t seem unreasonable given the current system. That said, it’s much like withholding, if people paid attention to how much they paid over time they’d bitch, so of course the government prefers the current system that keeps most people oblivious, especially the “I can afford this much monthly payment, and don’t care about how much the total is” types.
But really this whole thing is kinda silly because it all assumes everything else stays the same, which of course it won’t. And someone will find a way to exploit the system for personal gain.
Ultimately there is no “just” taxation system.
I would be happy enough if taxes were about raising revenue not rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
depends on the amount of revenue. I’d rather take punishing taxes if gov is 10% of gdp than revenue ones at 70% like Sweden in the good old days
I have said, as small as I would like government to be, if the Feds started spending less than 15% of GDP, I would shut up about it forever.
Or, as some one else put it eloquently:
No, fuck you, cut spending.
Well don’t you just miss the whole point of power.
I don’t see this as even remotely controversial; if someone wants to start a commune in which membership and participation is voluntary why should I give a fuck? Same as if someone wants to start a community in which membership is predicated on giving every adult male a blowjob and then dancing naked in a vat of pig’s blood after downing a bottle of laxatives while reciting War and Peace in Pig Latin. People are unique and often weird. Freedom means giving people space to be unique and weird in their own ways. It always is and always has been the government force angle that makes certain philosophies and lifestyles immoral.
As for property tax; the only taxes that are even remotely justified are consumption taxes and I don’t consider property (or land) taxes to be consumption-based. I recognize that there could be room for debate on that point but I stand firm on my opinion. If property taxes exist, the default position is that the government owns everything and even “property owners” are just renting, rendering the whole concept of private property a sham.
… membership is predicated on giving every adult male a blowjob and then dancing naked in a vat of pig’s blood after downing a bottle of laxatives while reciting War and Peace in Pig Latin.
That seems oddly specific.
Private property without an entity to enforce those property rights is a sham too. That exclusivity isn’t free.
If we accept the necessity of the existence of government to protect private property, that doesn’t automatically imply that said government must be funded through property taxes.
Said differently, there’s no reason why an *efficient* government couldn’t fund the courts, police, etc. necessary to protect property rights through sales tax. The problem, of course, is that perhaps efficient government simply isn’t possible at all. Then we’re back to the (IMO unanswerable) question of anarchy vs. minarchy.
efficient government simply isn’t possible at all – it is not. the point of small government is that the waste is small compared to the total economy.
No, it doesn’t have to be property tax, but resources will be siphoned off to fund the state. However you choose to do it, someone will bitch about it. For people that understand there is no free lunch, they sure seem to think they can get govt for free.
Because there has never been a communist government that has kept the boot off. When individuals say “we should have communism” they mean , I want to impose communism on you. Not that I’m going to start a commune.
Consumption taxes are the most efficient tasks via economics) but not the easiest to collect. Hence our mis of interlocking taxes where evading each level would make evading another level difficult…. Buffet can have a 20 year old car and a small house… no property tax compared to his wealth.. but on average the govt gets its cut.
Land tax has zero dead weight loss (in theory) so is more efficient than consumption tax.
Only if calculated perfectly, and I pointed out the problems with that elsewhere. Basically it isn’t perfect, due to the calculation problem, so you argue that is is better than others, but inherently has flaws. Now we have to show our work and I feel that the consumption tax (but really a sales tax) will win in net efficiency given the modern structure of the economy.
Henry George wasn’t a saint, he was a man of his times, and in those times land rents (which included improvements) represented the most income, so like the Willy Sutton attribution “that is where the money was” . Today the money isn’t there.. the money is in income and returns on capital, not land rents. that is why modern tax systems go after those, either directly, or via proxy. Once upon a time, federal taxes were all excise, as they were easier to collect, until they weren’t enough, and not as easy. Local governments did property taxes because they couldn’t (at the time) force income taxes. Once the Feds regularized income taxation and therefore minimized the burden of local governments for tracking income outside of their jurisdiction. How does a locality tax your total income where you only spend 1 month of the year at the beach house?…. it doesn’t want 1/12 of your wealth (it would like it all).. but it will take all of your property taxes if you decide to buy a nice home there.. and that represents a socially consistent percentage of your income.
As Pie pointed out, voluntary communes =/= communism. That commune would exist on private property, and would certainly participate in the “capitalist” economy. That ain’t communism, which is a “whole of society” thing.
At that point, we’re back to philosophical questions of how to treat other people. If we define “Communism” as you say, then it is fundamentally incompatible with the NAP (and human nature) and I would agree then that it’s as abhorrent as a society built on human sacrifice. I don’t know if that’s the point CPRM is trying to make though…
it is fundamentally incompatible with the NAP – yes it is
. I don’t know if that’s the point CPRM is trying to make though – he should not have used the word communism then
Consumption taxes are slavery.
Depending where the incidence falls, it is either eating into the consumers work or the producers work or some combination thereof.
Every tax does that by definition, taking resources someone has worked for.
“That would be a government that allows communists to, you know, live freely in communes.”
And force YOU to pay for all of their free stuff.
And the Biden admin is working hard towards this noble goal. And if they cannot finish the job, maybe the new Wang Ding Dong Wing party can finish the job with their UBI. Democrats failed because they managed to give everyone free stuff but didn’t manage to make it free, mostly because Russia and Trumputin. Wang Dang Commie Tang has the right stuff and the best free ponies, for free and no one has to pay for it. If only Mayor Bottle Feeds could join this new party then utopia will finally arrive and there will be no racist highways.
“Wang Dang Commie Tang”
But enough about Asian pornography…
Don’t stick it in commie, Q. /best advice ever
*Farts*.
OFFS. There’s an actual commie subreddit. I am not even making this up. r/communism
It has a red with gold hammer and sickle logo.
I will not be joining. I mean the Meta subreddit is bad enough, imagine a bunch of soccer moms and facebook rejects all hanging out in one place, bootlicking the Zuckerborg 24/7. It’s … disturbing is what it is.
And I thought the worst chatroom on the internets was bad. Maybe Sea Smith is right after all.
You’re surprised?
You should check out r/antinatalism sometime.
Gonna pass on that.
That’s gonna be a whole pile of people I would just hate. And I don’t even have kids.
You don’t need kids to hate people who have kids. For example, in a conversation with a former co-worker:
Me: Weed should be legal.
Co-worker: But… I have kids!
Me: So you think it is OK to throw people in a cage over a plant because you have kids?
Co-worker: Well, no… but I have kids!
There you have it.
you should have offered to buy one off him
The Blues Brothers How Much For The Little Girl – https://youtu.be/NP5oPkZEI7Q
lol
Well, I am running low on orphans because of this imaginary inflation. But the most I could have offered him was some orphan grown weed.
That’s not a conversation you’re likely to have with antinatalists, true. Still doesn’t mean I want to deal with their death cult.
But… I have kids!
“That’s a solvable problem.”
I’m a pretend I didn’t see that…
Isn’t there basically a subreddit for everything? Why is a communism subreddit bad?
Although I had heard they removed a subreddit for detransitionsers.
“Although I had heard they removed a subreddit for detransitionsers.”
For some reason, I don’t doubt that, at all.
After all, detransitioners have killed more of their own than that 200 million commies killed in the 20th century. You have to draw a line somewhere if you are Reddit. Anyway, as it is, they let people say stuff that will get your comment deleted in half a nano second on Yahoo or Youtube.
I seriously tried 3 times to post a simple comment on Yahoo a couple of days ago and it got removed because of these words:
1. GayJay. You know, Gary Johnson.
2. SanFran Nan. WTF?
3. Commiefornia. WTF?
How did they even do that? Their AI must be almost as sentient as Alexa now.
Word blacklisting. You can build up a rather huge list quickly with just a few motivated mods.
Great gig when you have no skills that will let you get a real job. Even Meta are saying they are going to have to lay off ‘some’ people who probably shouldn’t be there. The chickens are coming home to roost for the woke orgs.
Put on your tinfoil hats – Michael Malice interviews Alex Jones.
https://youtu.be/cZxcPDHKpvc
Never take mine off anymore.
Fun interview. I liked how Alex talked about getting drunk during the shows. Explains a lot!
No taxes.
Service fees where appropriate.
“Service fees where appropriate.”
*lights Winston’s Mom signal*
Er, em, wouldn’t those be inappropriate service fees?
I hate communists with the passion of a thousand novas. Helicopter rides are the best thing for them.
Always fun explaining to a supplier that you’re not buying from them because they’re 85% higher than the competition for the exact same product.
But what about their high quality service?
Yeah, they’re kind of sucking on that front too.
Cost/Quality/Delivery – Pick two
One company hedged the steel market and bought a year’s worth of raw material back in November. The other did not.
Reminds me when Jet Blue hedged their fuel.
That was Southwest. Although Jet Blue may have done it too.
I knew that didn’t sound right!
The oldest running hippie commune is right here in TN, The Farm.
https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/tennessee/oldest-america-commune-tn/
From another article, somewhat relevant to the taxing issue…
“About a third to one half of the adults in the community work in nearby towns to support themselves and their families. Some work as independent contractors, while others work in industries or medical field. The rest of us make our living within the community, working for homegrown cottage industries like the Book Publishing Company, SE International, The Farm Catalog, the Soy Dairy, the Tempeh Lab, Village Media Services, and Mushroompeople. Others are involved in community services like The Farm School, The Farm Store, the Welcome Center, the Clinic, WUTZ-FM, and our community government. Some of us work in global transformation efforts through Farm-based charities.”
Some older communes depended on the spoils of capitalism…
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/17/archives/communes-spread-as-the-young-reject-old-values-communes-are-a-way.html
“Many are on welfare rolls or receive Federal food stamps that contribute to the commune larders.”
My sister adopted torties today.
I was expecting this
the weather is a bit too hot for soup
#metoo
very disappointed.
They look like cats not shelled reptiles.
I had a tortie named Noodle – and what a wonderful little cat she was. Noodle was like a spirit, looking like she could move without touching the ground. And the only cat I had who could jump up ~4 feet and then land on the turntable cover without skipping the record.
Died at approximately six years old – way too young. I cried like a little kid when I dug that grave.
I’ve had multiple varieties of cats over the years and torties do seem to have a unique personality.
Since leaving the nest I have had four cats: two calicos, a tortie and a torbie. They have all had pleasant but quirky personalities.
Every cat I’ve had has been different in their own weirdo quirky feline ways.
Rousseau: Do you like cats?
Boswell: No.
Rousseau: I was sure of that. It is my test of character. There you have the despotic instinct of men. They do not like cats because the cat is free, and will never consent to become a slave. He will do nothing to your order, as the other animals do.
The cats are nice enough to let me live in their house.
We’ve got one of those too.
Japanese trivia – they are “rusty cats”.
Speaking of cats: Lady Meow’s face is getting darker ‘n’ darker as the weeks go by:
https://i.imgur.com/6JlgeKx.jpg
The first stray* we took in was a tortise-shell. When we first moved out here, we had no outbuildings at all. The lawnmower just sat it the yard under a tarp. One day, the wife starts the mower, and this kitten comes busting out from under the back end. We started feeding her, took her to the vet, got her shots and fixed up. Great cat. Hated snakes. She’d deposit dead garters in the driveway.
*All of our cats have been strays, one way or another.
Daily Quordle 185
9️⃣5️⃣
8️⃣6️⃣
Big score today
Daily Quordle 185
8️⃣6️⃣
7️⃣5️⃣
Obvious collusion between government and tech to suppress speech notwithstanding, these people are simply unimpressive.
https://covidreason.substack.com/p/breaking-foia-emails-reveal-cdc-and
*scroll down to the pink rhinoceros*
According to my liberal neighbor, free speech limitations are good because you can’t have people yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.
My (rather drunken) reply – it was a party after all – “You know the entire point of free speech are so things can be openly debated. “
you can’t have people yelling FIRE – sure you can
the best answer to this is “so you think it is ok to jail people who are protesting a war”
Ten bucks says your neighbor doesn’t know what the SCOTUS case concerned.
I always like to follow up that one with “three generations of imbeciles are enough”; that’s your man right there.
It’s obvious. Anyone in a theater that catches on fire cannot alert other people in the theater.
Going off memory, it was about protesting the draft, correct?
As far as I could tell she was just repeating some lines from an article she had read.
you can’t have people yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater
What if its on fire?
Italian Hall disaster – for which no one was ever convicted of falsely yelling fire.
That’s such a horrible story. I started to include it in my Keweenaw travelogue and then decided against it.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/79-year-old-torched-dealers-cars-over-jeep-he-bought-in-1986-police-say
That’s how you hold a grudge!
This is the type of person who should not be released on bond.
You need to discuss this with both NYC and Albany.
Loctite and super glue are accelerants?
Reading it again, I doubt that’s a quote from the old man and probably paraphrased by the writer who doesn’t know the difference between and adhesive and an accelerant.
Probably exactly this.
This is the type of person who should not be released on bond.
It’s not like he meandered through the sacred hall of democracy, defiling it with his presence.
Sins of the the father?
I’d assume at best it’s now run by a family member of the ownership at the time that the dealership did what dealers do.
What do you call Irish Alzheimer’s?
You forget everything but the grudges.
—
related: my in-laws, way back in 1972-ish, bought a house without using their cousin, who was a real estate agent.
50 years later and those family branches still don’t talk to each other.
My mom’s side of the family has essentially cut my mom off (except for one of her eight siblings) because she encouraged my grandma to spend her money and travel when she was dying from kidney failure. They were very upset that my mom had grandma spend their inheritance. That happened… 25-35 years ago?
How dare she spend her money!
That’s shitty. My cousin is doing the same thing to her mother since my uncle died; my aunt, after recovering of losing her husband, embarked on a round of travel. Branson, Miami, Las Vegas, and so on. My cousin has been whining that her mother is “spending the estate.”
I haven’t spoken to my cousin about it, but my gut response is “…shut the fuck up, you whiny twat. It’s not ‘the estate,’ it’s her money.”
Then again, this particular cousin always was a self-centered, clueless cunte.
My siblings and I have (mostly) been encouraging my mother to die penniless.
She won’t, despite our exhortations, but we tried.
She continues to watch TV news, despite my recommendation not to, and believes everything she hears so she is afraid of the world now and reluctant to travel anymore (she’s 81).
It was a little amusing when she brought up how monkeypox was spreading – “I don’t think you need to worry about that, Mom, unless there’s parts of your social life you’re not telling us about (please don’t tell us about that, if so)”
Indiana Man throws his hat into the ring.
Where is Q?
Prince William’s Rumored Affair Is Back at the Top of Twitter
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prince-williams-rumored-affair-back-165542823.html
A product of the British boarding school system, no doubt.
Add in his stint in the Royal Navy, I don’t think he really had a chance.
He should have gotten a pre-nup on the whole pegging thing. 🙂
“Where is Q?”
If he’s like me he still hasn’t moved past the image for the morning links.
I thought that WAS a picture of Q.
No comment.
I had to go search around for an uncropped version, as one does:
https://imgur.com/gallery/8U72mEv
“as one does”
I do love me some “Eros Blog” who, pervert that he is, finds the original source material for dirty pictures.
http://www.erosblog.com/
He is unapologetically a pervert – so am I – which is refreshing in this weird neo-Puritan/not Puritan country we live in. I once met some Finnish transplants who were dumbfounded by America’s fear of nudity (in terms of sauna life).
I don’t really need to see Valtteri’s ass in the sauna.
Do you often end up in a sauna with Valtteri?
Only if I’m re-watching Drive To Survive.
Now I’m picturing all the doors in Casa Humungus as having this door hardware.
I like your take and follow the logic of it.
However, I’m going to counter-argue that of all the taxes, property tax is the most justified and reasonable. Governments, by nature, are land-holders (see borders, state-state land sales, and wars), and in fact of law the government owns all the land, so property tax is merely the rent paid to the landowner. An income tax, on the other hand, implies that the government is not a mere land-owner but is in fact a people-owner as well, which is far more detestable. And tariffs/use-taxes have the same justification as property taxes, in essence, so they are indistinguishable in my view.
Not sure I follow your logic though. why should government own all the land?
The government owns a lot of land, but for most of the country the title was either granted or sold to those who now own the land.
This is where we get to what “fee title” really means.
The term “fee” comes from “fief”. The sovereign would grant “fiefs” to various noblemen, in exchange for their promise to, yes, collect and pay taxes, raise armies, etc. They held their fief at the pleasure of the sovereign, who could take it back.
The root of every piece of real estate in this country is a grant from the sovereign. That grant is not absolute and irrevocable. The government retains a residual interest in every piece of land.
The More You Know….
But shouldn’t. It’s an evil system with an evil history.
Gotta live with reality, there is no clean theoretical basis.
Related to the German word for livestock, for some reason.
Tax cattle.
Yes, this is exactly what I was referencing. I think almost everywhere land is held in fee title rather than allodial title, so legally all land is owned by the government. While I don’t like it, I don’t know how I could actually argue that it shouldn’t be so, because after all if an organization were to acquire a bunch of property and then refuse to sell it but simply rented it out, how does that go against the principles of property rights? Because that is essentially what governments have done – the game was over for the rest of us long before we were born.
Is this the “real Communism” I’ve heard so much about?
It is only real communism if it works.
So never?
That’s no reason to stop trying.
something something mountain of skulls
Wait, wasn’t that Genghis Khan?
What’s a few hundred million bodies among comrades? One death is tragedy. One million is statistic.
Re: SP’s Memorial, I cannot attend. However, if anyone is traveling I-70 east of Columbus* and wishes to break their travel, email me at thecow at my-screen-name dot com.
*I don’t know why you would be, it’s not the fastest route from Columbus to Glibs Gulch, but you do you.
Not for this trip, but on the drive to and from the honey harvest, I have to pass through ohio twice.
Good news Glibs. The hits keep on coming. You will be continuing subsidizing autos for rich people. Tesla cheerleaders – It would appear the union kickback has been removed.
It will allow carmakers to continue offering $7,500 in tax credits for the purchase of new “clean cars” with some conditions: they will need to be built with minerals that are extracted or processed in a country the US has a free trade agreement with, and have a battery that includes a large percentage of components that were manufactured or assembled in North America…
Car buyers would also be eligible to receive $4,000 for used clean cars for the first time.
The deal also includes a cap on the suggested retail price of eligible vehicles of $55,000 for new cars and $80,000 for pickups and SUVs. Credits would be capped to an income level of $150,000 for a single filing taxpayer and $300,000 for joint filers for new vehicles, and at $75,000 and $150,000 for used cars.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-27/senate-deal-includes-ev-tax-credits-sought-by-tesla-toyota#xj4y7vzkg
clean cars
FFS.
I feel sick.
A regressive tax then. Lower income people don’t buy these things.
Is there any grift that Manchin didn’t support in this bill?!
Look – my three year old low mileage Tesla is now worth more than I paid for it.
Short of exotics and low volume sports cars – new cars don’t appreciate. Until now.
I guess not sure what Tesla you have, but it seems it could fit into either of those categories.
I will never, ever buy an electric vehicle. Fuck these clowns.
That works for them – they want us all to rent everything, forever. No ownership for the serfs.
I’m not gonna say never, but probably never.
Unless communes own the property (and hence pay property taxes) they are squatting (trespassers) on someone else’s property and free loading.
I’m in “The Rent is too damned High” category and really feel compassion for those with lower incomes, trying to manage a house/property taxes as appreciation keeps increasing the value/tax on their home.
This latest round of inflation is not going to end well. Maybe those street dwellers are smarter than I am. Drugs may be the answer.
I’ve known people who had to give up the family home because the property taxes were more than their income. That’s the municipality charging rent and saying “C-ya!” if you can’t pay up.
That seems kinda shitty.
If we have to pay taxes then I’m more of a fan of consumption taxes.
#metoo.
My modest proposal:
Abolish 99.9% of the government and return it to its core functions. Very little revenue would be needed to sustain core activities. At the local level, courthouse services are paid for by user fees with a very slight cushion to fund a minimal number of peace officers (most “crimes” have been struck off the books).
A barebones State and Federal government could be funded by a tariff with a constitutionally placed percentage cap. No tariffs aren’t great, but I’d prefer a very low tariff as the alternative to any income or property taxes.
My preferred option would be to end the standing military. Let the citizens arm themselves and form free militias to deter invasion by foreign actors. Issue letters of marque if necessary. If a standing military is required, then the military should be self-funded and income generating through mercenary work. South Korea should be paying through the nose right now for our protection.
Constitutionally limited government is tyranny. Or something.
Anti-democratic! /hurrdurrhurr
I was under the impression that diversity is our strength and we need a constant stream of
Democrat votersmigrants because reasons.BREAKING: DC @MayorBowser requests @DCNationalGuard activated indefinitely to help migrant busses arriving in DC. Calling it a “humanitarian crisis” that has reached a “tipping point” with 4,000 migrants so far. Requesting DC Armory be used as processing center. @nbcwashington
I gotta say, the way the National Guard has been converted to forced labor for Our Masters, to be called upon whenever, well, forced labor is needed, would make it hard for me to join up. Got a nurse shortage? Sic the National Guard on it! Need flood or tornado cleanup? Get out there, boys! Your open border is causing administrative backups? We have just what we need to process paperwork – the National Guard!
“Now you know how we feel.”
/Texas
I don’t like the playing illegals as pawns but looks like both sides are doing it now.
They could always go the fuck back home.
You guys are way overthinking this. All taxes should be raised using lottery machines. They’re entirely voluntary and if the roads suck you can go pay more at a lottery machine, have the miniscule chance of winning a bunch of money, and scratch-offs can be a short-lived source of amusement.
Can you imagine if the IRS’ sole job was to be hucksters encouraging people to buy more scratch-offs? I can. It’d be wonderful and hilarious.
*my inner EE is triggered*
Not meant as a reply…
It’s okay, I’ll enjoy the attention anyways.
I thought positrons were electrons’ positively charged counterparts.
Nope, definitely holes.
I did buy a couple of tickets so I can win a $billion tomorrow. After I win I promise to tell nobody (except my lawyer and accountant).
If you are going to win I’ll skip on the tickets and just send you the money, cut out the middleman.
Much appreciated.
Hmm.
Would they have a monopoly on games of chance or just scratch-offs?
Mad props to robc for highjacking this post for another SLT, err, “discussion”.