Re: Distribution & Redistribution
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 11/18/04
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Outrageous!! We *must* have tort reform!"
- In reply to: William C Colley: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Next in thread: William C Colley: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Reply: William C Colley: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:14:47 GMT
On 16 Nov 2004 14:12:42 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<419940b9.24378253@news.telus.net>...
>> On 15 Nov 2004 09:43:06 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However,
>> >given the fact that there do exist individuals who may be land rich
>> >but money poor, what provision would you make for delaying collection
>> >of land taxes until transfer of title or deed, as opposed to
>> >collection of taxes on a yearly basis?
>>
>> If they don't want to pay the taxes, they can relinquish the land.
>> Simple.
>
>Even though they had legally acquired title to the land and are
>currently paying all local property taxes?
The land tax is precisely what they aren't paying.
>I already pay property
>taxes, that's a given for me. I'm thinking specifically of individuals
>who, through whatever circumstances, find themselves with property
>they have lived on for many years but somehow lack the cash to pay
>property taxes.
One of the greatest benefits of free markets is that resources move
into the hands of those who will use them most productively. I don't
see any compelling reason to sabotage that process for the unearned
benefit of idle current landowners.
>What matter if the government should wait for that
>individual to live their natural lives so long as the land title is
>taxed for whatever amount assessed at the eventual time of sale?
The foregone potential production from that land is gone forever.
>> >I for one could not in good
>> >conscious evict someone from land they legally owned for the sole
>> >reason of their failure to pay property taxes,
>>
>> Could you in good conscience evict a tenant for the sole reason of
>> their failure to pay rent?
>
>It may depend on circumstances, I can imagine scenarios in which I
>would voluntarilly take on responsibility to help pay for a tenants
>rent, but I don't think a tenant is entitled to free rent.
Is a land "owner" entitled to free rent? The rent of land is created
by government and the community, not the owner. Why should he get to
pocket it?
>At least
>not on private property.
What makes land private property?
>If the government wants to let people live
>free on government land, well that's a different issue.
Sure, _if_ it wants to.
>> I certainly could, and likewise a deadbeat landholder.
>
>Imagine a scenario where an elderly person lives on land they own and
>has enough cash to eat and survive, but no other assets than the
>property they own and live on.
<sigh> I knew it was only a matter of time before the poor old widows
would show up....
>Why can't the government simply wait
>until such a person dies of old age than to demand payment of a
>property tax which they cannot pay?
To let others who can better use the land use it.
And why can't private landowners forego the rent of elderly tenants
who can't afford it? Do you think only the elderly who own land ever
experience financial constraints on their preferred lifestyles? If
I'm going to think about elderly people who may be experiencing
financial hardships, the ones who own land they aren't using
productively are going to be pretty far down the priority list.
>So what if that piece of property
>stays out of the market for a few years or decades, accumulating
>wealth?
It doesn't accumulate wealth. That's the point. All it does is
accumulate a deficit account of foregone production.
>> >but the government
>> >which has a vested interest in collecting said taxes, for the supposed
>> >purposes of mutual benifit as you state, can afford to wait until the
>> >title or deed to the land is actually transferred to someone else.
>> >Can't it?
>>
>> Of course, grace periods are normal in such cases. It is rare for
>> property tax arrears to result in the owner's dispossession, even as
>> long as _five_years_ after the last tax payment was received. But
>> come on, there has to be a limit on such indulgences.
>
>Well this concession goes far to assuage some concerns in that what
>you are describing does sound like property taxes as I understand
>them, and not some novel confiscatory tax to be imposed annually or
>more frequently on whomever is unfortunate enough to have scraped up
>enough money to buy a piece of property.
?? Odd to be calling landowners, the recipients of massive subsidies,
"unfortunate." What do you call those who _haven't_ been able to
accumulate enough money to buy land?
>And of course as long as it
>is a local tax then individuals can at least move to places with tax
>rates they are most comfortable with.
The only way for a landowner to avoid a land tax is by using less
valuable land.
-- Roy L
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Outrageous!! We *must* have tort reform!"
- In reply to: William C Colley: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Next in thread: William C Colley: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Reply: William C Colley: "Re: Distribution & Redistribution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|