Its about that time...

The government taxes the exchange of money. It taxes the earning of money. All of these are portions of what is actually earned or exchanged.

Does the government charge you for just sitting on your ass? Why should they? I'm not arguing against taxation, I'm arguing against a particular kind of taxation because it charges people what is basically an arbitrary number based on what the government thinks you should be making from land.

They may as well do a survey of people with your education and set your income tax dues based on what you should be making relative to your peers. Compared to simple income and sales taxes, it's unrealistic and sort of oppressive.

How would you prefer to pay for essential protection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I'm arguing against a particular kind of taxation because it charges people what is basically an arbitrary number based on what the government thinks you should be making from land.

---

They don't tax you for this, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I'm not even sure where you're getting this idea from. I explained what the justifications for taxation are, across the board. Money is used as a rough indicator of how much government services you've likely used, and your ability to pay for it. Lets follow this here...

Sales Tax. You're not being taxed because you've spent money. You're being taxed to pay for recognition of the exchange of ownership of a certain good, or the result of a service, and the continued future protection that these ownership rights entail.

Income Tax. You're not being taxed because you've made money. You're being taxed because money is a form of property, which needs recognition and protection, amongst other things, and you likely used some government service to acquire it.

Property Tax. You're not being taxed because it could earn you money. You're being taxed because its property, which needs recognition and protection, its monetary value being a rough indicator of how much protection its likely worth to you or someone else.

And even if the money goes towards schools instead of guns for Space Marines, arguably that's money going towards your homestead's defence too, since keeping the kiddy-winks in school and teaching them about the sanctity of human life reduces the amount of roving raiders threatening your little farm-plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

They don't tax you for this, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I'm not even sure where you're getting this idea from. I explained what the justifications for taxation are, across the board. Money is used as a rough indicator of how much government services you've likely used, and your ability to pay for it. Lets follow this here...

Sales Tax. You're not being taxed because you've spent money. You're being taxed to pay for recognition of the exchange of ownership of a certain good, or the result of a service, and the continued future protection that these ownership rights entail.

Income Tax. You're not being taxed because you've made money. You're being taxed because money is a form of property, which needs recognition and protection, amongst other things, and you likely used some government service to acquire it.

Property Tax. You're not being taxed because it could earn you money. You're being taxed because its property, which needs recognition and protection, its monetary value being a rough indicator of how much protection its likely worth to you or someone else.

---

You're making direct links between specific taxes and specific services that the taxers themselves aren't making. For the third time, I'm not railing against taxation in general. I'm railing against tax on something that may or may not sit there, and the government saying that one "should" be making a certain amount of cash from a plot of land.

When the government tells you that you have to pay an arbitrarily calculated tax on your land just for having it sit there, you are not being taxed for "government services you've likely used." You are being taxed based on a formula that is divorced from reality.

It's not like sales taxes directly and exclusively contribute towards commercial regulators. Most taxes go into a general pool of money, and governments mostly try to budget according to the revenue raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

And even if the money goes towards schools instead of guns for Space Marines, arguably that's money going towards your homestead's defence too, since keeping the kiddy-winks in school and teaching them about the sanctity of human life reduces the amount of roving raiders threatening your little farm-plot.

---

Once again, I am not railing against taxation in general. I'm railing against a tax on an asset that may or may not just sit there.

How would you like it if the government charged you a tax every year for owning a computer? They would try to calculate the monetary value of what everyone in the country did on their computers, then send you a bill for your part every year. Even if you were just a poor student. Would that make any practical sense?

Quote:

---

Does the government charge you for just sitting on your ass?

---

Yep. We pay a per capita tax (just for living here), and a professional tax (for doing business here), plus some other resident taxes. But PA is provincial that way.

Also, you pay property tax on vacant land because it's still connected to roads and utilities. If not, the tax is super low. If you have farm land, the tax is lower than if it's developed land (an incentive to keep farmers around). Some people buy acreage and plant a bunch of trees, to get the tree farm deduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You're making direct links between specific taxes and specific services that the taxers themselves aren't making.

---

For the last damn time, I am not drawing a direct link, I am explaining the justifications for why they are taxed. Are you honestly this dense? You do understand the difference between a justification and a direct link right? One is why you should be taxed, ie. a justification, and the other is how tax money is collected and then what it is spent on, ie. a direct link. The government provides services related to, protection of, and recognition of your property and property rights as an owner of that property. The government charges you for these services. It does not matter WTF they use this money for after they collect it as they are still providing those other services. I'm honestly trying to understand how it is you arrived at such conclusions that are so divorced from sense and reality. If you bought a can of soda at a store, giving someone money for providing you with a soda, do you get pissed off if the money then goes to stocking the store with bagels? Do you get pissed if someone else comes in to buy a bagel and the store then uses that money to make sure the next time you come in theres another soda available for you to purchase? No? Well then WTF does it matter if the government, a service provider like all others, does the same exact thing? This wouldn't piss me off so much if you didn't likely possess a college degree in business or economics, and I didn't possess a degree in art. ART. :sour:

In case you still don't get it: You should be taxed for owning land because the government has to recognize your ownership of that land, and protect that ownership. They also provide additional services related to your ownership. It does not matter what the hell they do with the money after they collect it so long as they are still upholding their agreement to recognize and protect your ownership.

And here's a further idea...ownership, and the idea of owning something, only truly works in a society that recognizes and protects what you think you own, otherwise you're just temporarily hanging on to it until you either die, or someone comes along and takes it from you. Take your parcel of land that you think you're unjustly being taxed for in our next hypothetical situation. Say the US Government spontaneously collapses. Do you own that land anymore? No, you're just temporarily occupying it until someone else who wants it comes and takes it from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

And paying a sales tax doesn't cover that?

We all know that property taxes are mainly used to fund schools after all.

---

If you just have land (that is protected in the broad sense of the word), it doesn't make pay any sales tax does it?

As far as funding schools go - if you live somewhere you have the right to use the local public schools, so in essence by paying property taxes you pay for services provided to that property, whether you use them or not. It also gives you the right for firemen to show up when you have a fire, police show up when you are robbed, all kinds of services linked to your property.

That said, your property taxes are way higher than ours, so you might be right that the current calculations are a bit divorced from reality. But I don't see what's (in principle) wrong with taxing for property that just sits there, since even sitting property enjoys government protection and entitles the owner to certain government provided services.

I also think it's weird that over there certain services (like public schools) are so directly linked to one specific tax, instead of dipping in the big government fund which is filled by all taxes. Makes it more vulnerable to fluctuations in tax revenue, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

My point isn't what the taxes are being used for (you brought that up, not me). My point is what kinds of activities those taxes curtail. Property taxes are asset taxes; you pay a tax for something even if it doesn't make any money. I don't think that concept is so enshrined in many other places in the tax code.

---

It's not about whether it makes money or not, just by being there it enjoys protection and gives the owner the right to government services. Even if you sell nothing (no sale tax), and don't have any income (no income tax), you still make use of that. Hence, property tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Once again, I am not railing against taxation in general. I'm railing against a tax on an asset that may or may not just sit there.

How would you like it if the government charged you a tax every year for owning a computer? They would try to calculate the monetary value of what everyone in the country did on their computers, then send you a bill for your part every year. Even if you were just a poor student. Would that make any practical sense?

---

If the nation of Finland had a fixed number of computers, yes, I think that'd make perfect sense, since I'd be using a limited resource and if I didn't feel like owning a computer was worth the tax, I must not need one that badly, and the computer can go to someone who does need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

How is one a land barron if you just own land and don't do anything with it? And what about conservation?

But more generally, I'm concerned that property taxes harm people on fixed incomes or who simply want to unplug from society. If I want to buy 10 acres and squeeze out a meagre subsistence existence without participating in our economy, why do I have to pay property taxes on it?

---

Zoning. Conservation, agriculture, residential, business, mixed-use, industrial.....they have different tax rates. It's not as random as you assume.

If you want 10 acres in the middle of nowhere, with no improvements, the taxes will be very, very low. They might tax for that dirt or gravel road or water culverts, in case you need police or fire assistance. But if you've got 10 acres in the middle of suburbia, there are paved roads, sanitary sewer, storm drains, plus more services. That'll be your municipal tax. The school tax is high because of population density and the need for multiple K-12 (which means more roads and services).

Elderly or fixed income folks do get hurt by rising property taxes, even with a homestead exemption. That's why many move to apartments or condos. Makes sense in a way, because how would an aging suburb with fixed taxes be able to maintain the infrastructure and services, or attract young people, if they never moved out? Trick is getting multiple types of zoning and uses, with a varied tax base that's sustainable over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Elderly or fixed income folks do get hurt by rising property taxes, even with a homestead exemption.

---

Not here in sunny California. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

For the last damn time, I am not drawing a direct link, I am explaining the justifications for why they are taxed. Are you honestly this dense? You do understand the difference between a justification and a direct link right? One is why you should be taxed, ie. a justification, and the other is how tax money is collected and then what it is spent on, ie. a direct link.

---

You're using them completely interchangeably. :confused:

Quote:

---

In case you still don't get it: You should be taxed for owning land because the government has to recognize your ownership of that land, and protect that ownership. They also provide additional services related to your ownership. It does not matter what the hell they do with the money after they collect it so long as they are still upholding their agreement to recognize and protect your ownership.

---

And why can't the government function by taxing actual activities? What's next, breathing taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

If you just have land (that is protected in the broad sense of the word), it doesn't make pay any sales tax does it?

---

There is always going to be some level of economic activity, services demanded, etc. I think it's find for the government to tax for that. But taxing someone just for sitting on some land seems to discriminate against those who aren't making as much money from nearly identical parcels of land.

One can go on forever about the principle of taxing someone for recognizing their land rights and protecting them, but at the end of the day the government is still semi-arbitrarily deciding that you "should" make a certain amount from that land and hand over a proportionate share of the money regardless of whether you're actually making that amount of money.

Quote:

---

I also think it's weird that over there certain services (like public schools) are so directly linked to one specific tax, instead of dipping in the big government fund which is filled by all taxes. Makes it more vulnerable to fluctuations in tax revenue, too.

---

Agreed. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

If the nation of Finland had a fixed number of computers, yes, I think that'd make perfect sense, since I'd be using a limited resource and if I didn't feel like owning a computer was worth the tax, I must not need one that badly, and the computer can go to someone who does need it.

---

I think you know that quantity of computers has little to do with it. You've bought your computer. You paid a sales tax on the computer. You paid a sales tax on the software. You pay ongoing taxes on the electricity and internet that powers much of what you do on that computer.

Does it really make sense to you to also tax your computer if it's off? If it's a second computer you don't use too often?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think you know that quantity of computers has little to do with it.

---

:bulb: It was the point of my post, you ding-dong

Nation-states have a finite amount of land, even though yours and mine are very sparsely populated, on average.

Plus the gummint has put a lot of money into network infrastructures etc

Quote:

---

One can go on forever about the principle of taxing someone for recognizing their land rights and protecting them, but at the end of the day the government is still semi-arbitrarily deciding that you "should" make a certain amount from that land and hand over a proportionate share of the money regardless of whether you're actually making that amount of money.

---

One way to look at it is that the land belongs to the state, and we pay "rent" to hold the deed. The states' attitudes toward land varies between conservancy and commerce, development and tourism. It's a paradox, that's why it's political.

Ted Turner owns a gazillion acres of pristine Montana land that he's 'not using', but its value is in not being developed. His taxes are (presumably) lower than if he petitioned to have it zoned Retail-Business to build a megamall, even though a megamall would bring in tons of shoppers and tax revenue. Developers buy defunct farm acreage and push to get it re-zoned Recreation-Residential, then build a golf-course with homes around the edges. They dangle the "property tax = revenue" carrot all the time.

If you're unhappy with state property taxes, blame developers with deep pockets, municipalities with empty pockets, and zoning boards in the middle, as much as you blame "the gummint".

Land doesn't belong to the state. There are countries there this is actually part of the legal code (EG China). I don't think it's really a good idea. Did I ever show people here the pictures of the neighborhood in Shanghai that was demolished by crony capitalism?

I think you have a point about zoning screwing with things, but in many respects zoning is a necessary evil. I don't think property taxes are. If I want to buy land 5 miles away from a giant mall and farm it, that should be an option. I shouldn't have to go to Montana.

Depends on how you want to define land ownership, or how far back in time you want to go. But we don't have Homesteading any more. Squatters are legally evicted from vacant "unowned" land. The state lays claim on deeds when an owner can't be established. Then there's Eminent Domain.

Personally, I'd love it if property taxes were paid once at time of purchase. They already add on a deed transfer tax, a recording tax, a sales tax, and other fees for title search and stuff just to get a deed. Whether the state "owns" the land or not, they have legal authority to require all sorts of things to prove ownership, to require zoning, and to tax. They set the hoops and we have to jump through them.

Ditto for home ownership with a lien or mortgage---the bank owns it until we discharge the lien. We consider the house "ours" but it's really not.

You can buy land 5 miles from a mall and farm it (or start a junk yard, or host raves or whatever) but you've already agreed to follow the zoning laws when you signed the papers, and agreed to get a permit for certain stuff. (I have to pay for a permit to hold a yard sale, and can't have one every weekend. I can't have goats to eat my grass, or put a produce stand at the curb to sell vegetables, either. etc etc) :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think you have a point about zoning screwing with things, but in many respects zoning is a necessary evil. I don't think property taxes are. If I want to buy land 5 miles away from a giant mall and farm it, that should be an option. I shouldn't have to go to Montana.

---

On the flip side, businesses have a history of coming in, buying up as much property in a location as possible, letting it rot, causing property values to fall/collapse on the neighboring properties and then buying/eminent domaining those for far less then they are truely worth. Screwing the city out of proper property taxes, and the community out of proper developments. Pfizer did this in Connecticut, then walked away from it; they haven't decided if they want to sell or lease the land (corporate welfare via eminent domain :down:), and there was the famous case involving a marina that eventually went the other way, but the area was already ruined by the big business's shady practices.

Cities/states expect a certain return on the land, partly to cover operating expenses, partly to stop people from hoarding land and screwing everyone else over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You're using them completely interchangeably. :confused:

---

Explain how I'm doing this because I'd like to know how you're internalizing all of this because you're more coming off to me like you're incapable of differentiating the two ideas.

Quote:

---

And why can't the government function by taxing actual activities?

---

They do. Are you completely unaware of the services provided by the government in regards to land ownership?

Quote:

---

But taxing someone just for sitting on some land seems to discriminate against those who aren't making as much money from nearly identical parcels of land.

---

Okay, so lets say tomorrow you're exempt from paying taxes on a hypothetical 1 acre plot of land that you own because you're not making money off it. The day after that I'm going to start using it as a dump. Whats your course of action to prevent this from occurring?

Quote:

---

One can go on forever about the principle of taxing someone for recognizing their land rights and protecting them, but at the end of the day the government is still semi-arbitrarily deciding that you "should" make a certain amount from that land

---

Source? If you're going to keep repeating this, I want a source for it that says they are taxing you for what you can make off the property and not its worth or value expressed in monetary terms, because these are two different things.

Somebody should mention people like Ted Turner who buy up large chunks of farm property in order to collect subsidies to not grow anything on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Land doesn't belong to the state.

---

Yeah, good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Somebody should mention people like Ted Turner who buy up large chunks of farm property in order to collect subsidies to not grow anything on it.

---

I did! But I didn't think he got a subsidy to leave his land fallow.....not like what farmers get to control crop commodities. I thought he got a huge property tax discount to keep it zoned Conservation land. Who knows about the mineral or mining rights or what's up with that. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

One can go on forever about the principle of taxing someone for recognizing their land rights and protecting them, but at the end of the day the government is still semi-arbitrarily deciding that you "should" make a certain amount from that land and hand over a proportionate share of the money regardless of whether you're actually making that amount of money.

---

Principle or no principle, the tax is connected to the value of the land itself, not how much you can make from it. :bulb:

God damn my life moves slowly, but I'm not complaining!

Mom is still in her house, no communication from the bank since their "we are starting foreclosure" call, and she is down 1 less cat. We're looking for homes when we can, pretty much set on the area, which means moving out of South Tampa to an area called Brandon. Its got everything we have, except the base, and somehow that makes the homes worth about half the price :D. Still plenty close enough to downtown.

I'll be paying off my last credit card next month. First time I'll be credit card debt free since I started using them. Thats pretty fucking big to me.
That also means my last roadblock before proposal and marriage will be gone. We are looking around at designs and whatnot (yeah, still haven't asked the actual question yet). I'm pretty much set on getting a One Ring wedding band, and Brandy agrees that it fits me perfectly. Color is going to depend on what she picks, hoping for yellow gold, but its not that large of a concern. Brandy's jewerly taste (in my opinion) could be a little more refined. She keeps ending up with these rings that aren't solid rocks, but (usually) 4 rocks lined up to appear like a larger stone. Feels cheap IMO. Also need to figure out the 10/14/18K ratings. I know the higher the number the more pure it is, but we both use our hands heavily in our jobs, and we have plenty of marks to prove it, so I don't want to end up with an 18K ring thats going to get marked to shit, but i don't want to get a dull 10K if 18K doesn't mark that easy (and I don't want to worry about either concern if its all marketing bullshit).

The easy solution there is to get a 14 karat one. :) Though I'm sure Bitter can provide better advice, 18k rings tend to cost far more than 14k ones, and I'm not sure there's enough of a quality difference to justify that higher cost. Also, the bigger the main diamond, the higher the cost of the ring, which means having smaller diamonds will save you lots of money. I'm not saying you should be cheap or anything, but there are better ways to show your gf that you care than spending several months worth of income on her for one item.

can't you get a RRoD? :heart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

can't you get a RRoD? :heart:

---

you sorta can :haha:
http://i.imgur.com/dZqivs.jpg

but I like the rounded design, and the engraving (perfectly describes a marriage), on the One Ring
http://i.imgur.com/uQKXF.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I'll be paying off my last credit card next month. First time I'll be credit card debt free since I started using them. Thats pretty fucking big to me.

---

Congratulations on that one :up:

Goddamn thats alot of money for a 10k ring. Nerds are just as bad as divas when it comes to the amount they'll spend on stuff. :bulb:

Got hubby's 14k, a simple gold band but very elegant IMO, for $129. Mine was about $80 since it was a thinner band. Very lovely rings, simple and not overly ornate, which is how our marriage is. :) However, I have no idea how much the engagement ring cost and I don't need to know. It's also a simple gold band with a very pretty 5/8 carat diamond. Not too huge, just perfect for me. I love simple and elegant, and I'm glad he had such good taste to choose such a wonderful ring. It's been almost 7 years since he asked me, and I still find myself admiring it when I wear it (I only wear the diamond when I go out so I don't get soap, cleaning stuff, and baby poo mushed into it).

Congrats on getting closer to commitment. And getting debt-free is super important! :) Not that it's any of my business, but why has buying a house prevented you from marrying someone you love? Is it just getting the finances in order that was the problem? (I get that scenario, if the person you are with is bad with finances you may not want to be stuck paying for their mistakes.)

I'll be damned if I'm signing my life away and not getting an awesome ring out of it. At least this one can help me disappear. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catgrrl

Congrats on getting closer to commitment. And getting debt-free is super important! :) Not that it's any of my business, but why has buying a house prevented you from marrying someone you love? Is it just getting the finances in order that was the problem? (I get that scenario, if the person you are with is bad with finances you may not want to be stuck paying for their mistakes.)

---

Looks like I'm screwed on this from any angle I approach it from. Her credit is crap, and won't start getting better for like another 3 years. Everything we've done thus far has been in my name. Which means my debt to income ratio is so out of sync it breaks computers. Brandy no longer has a W2 producing job, but we do claim her income to the IRS now, and her income obviously goes towards the bills, which is why we're able to afford the rent, double cars, etc.
Can't put her name on a home loan because of the bad credit, marriage would obviously ding my credit, but that I'm not concerned about. By the time it makes it into the reports we can start turning her info around. My moms credit isn't bad, but the foreclosure is an instant no for most loan companies.
Last person I talked to told me they would have trouble getting me approved for more then $500 a month :bulb:

My main hangup on getting married was my debt. I didn't feel right getting into something like that with old debt. I don't know why, it was just something I always said "I'm fixing this first."

The buying the house thing wasn't a huge concern for me. I like renting, but a family needs to be settled, and with my mom in the picture home owning would just be easier, even if its not the better financial decision.

No, that makes alot of sense. I think that before considering marriage or home ownership, financial situations should be assessed. Sounds like you're on the right path. And even though home ownership is a little more expensive than renting, it is so worth it in my opinion. I love being able to do what I want with my house, and not have neighbors above or below me like I did in an apartment. And we can fix stuff our own way, and not have to wait for management to get around to it. The hardest part of it was not being tempted to spend what the bank approved us for. We bought something that cost way less so we could afford to eat more than bread and water. LOL

BTW, the ring is pretty. Just not my thing. I'm married to a geek myself but he's more Star Trek than LOTR (though he likes that too) so luckily I avoided that battle.
If the ring came with Liv Tyler maybe I'd consider... :yum:

Nice one on the credit cards OG!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Her credit is crap, and won't start getting better for like another 3 years. Everything we've done thus far has been in my name.

Can't put her name on a home loan because of the bad credit, marriage would obviously ding my credit, but that I'm not concerned about. By the time it makes it into the reports we can start turning her info around.

My main hangup on getting married was my debt. I didn't feel right getting into something like that with old debt. I don't know why, it was just something I always said "I'm fixing this first."

---

Smart thinking :up:

Just a suggestion, but Brandy could try credit-repair before getting married too. Maybe fast track it by using one card in her name (if she has one) and paying it off diligently, and it won't take 3 years? Then she can get her name on the loan and title. That can go a long way toward "feeling" like financial partners on equal footing. And if something happens to one of you, rights of survivorship would kick in without needing a lawyer.

I recommend throwing the ring into Mount Doom before it destroys you OG. ;)


Seriously though, gratz on taking the next step!

Mom found out today she has cancer. I don't know much yet, its apparently the most common version of mouth cancer. She doesn't drink, doesn't smoke. Requires surgery before the doc can see how bad it is. Anything from cutting it out and removing a few teeth to having to remove part of her jaw, to the usual fix it now or prepare for death doom and gloom.

I am not ready to lose my mom.

We're supposed to all go to Disney this week. 4 day vacation park hoping. No idea, and not concerned, about whats going to happen now with that.

Does look like this is going to bump up the idea of mom moving in. Especially if the cancer is advanced.

Sorry to hear that, OG. :(

That's really awful OG, all of this shouldn't be happening to one family. :(

Oral cancer does have a fairly high recovery rate if found early enough (though it's usually really hard to spot). But obviously every situation is different and the math doesn't really mean much when this is happening to someone you love.

I'm so sorry OG! :(

Like Dread said tho, oral cancer is usually very treatable and has a high rate of successful treatments.

Sorry to hear that, OG.

Hope she recovers :(

Mom: Cancer has not spread from where it was first discovered. This means the treatment will be limited to surgery, but she could end up losing a large part of her lower right jaw to make sure they "get it all." Surgery starts within a week, so we're all hoping they don't find any surprises while they are working. Thanks everyone for the well wishes :)

Me: My promotion position has finally been created and opened. I've already applied, just need to get the college to hand over the transcripts. No idea when the interviews are. There are a lot of people applying, but few of them have my seniority, and those that do are only doing it because the position they are in is getting RIFed away this year. Still, its going to be a tight fight, for the entire county they are only hiring 2 people. Pay raise isn't impressive, only a few extra thousand a year, but it would provide a nice cushion when we finally find a house.

And I really need to get on the ball about finding a god damn ring.

Shit, this sounds like a wordpress blog. thats lame.