Can You Ever Really Own Real Property?
Posted April 20th, 2008 by gottago
output
It seems people talk about what they should be allowed to do with their property (land and house), as long as you pay your property tax.
My question is, how do think you can own your home if it is contingent on your paying a state property tax. If you don't pay the tax, the government will place a lien on the property and dispose of it to satisfy the tax debt.
Please tell me how you will ever own your property with this bogus tax in place. Feedback would be appreciated.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I appreciate the feedback
from all of you. This issue, amongst many others, don't garner attention of people until you slap them in the face with it (not talking about people on this site).
I sent a note to the editor of my newspaper, Spartanburg Herald Journal, similar to my original post here, and he called today to see if they can print it tomorrow.
It seems the newspapers are willing to expose this corrupt system. I'd say it's worth 5 minutes of time to express these concerns. Give it a try.
Taxes should
ensure that the state will protect your private property rights. Without state protection you might as well quit your job so you can sit on the front porch with a shotgun. Yes, this is a coercive tax law but there really doesn't seem to be a better solution. What would you rather them do? Allow you to not pay your property taxes and just not send out fire and rescue to your house when it catches on fire or someone trespasses?
Their are plenty of other ways to collect taxes
If they can tax property, then you don't own that property. The most basic right protected by the Constitution is the right to truly own property (allodial title), not just rent it from the government. You don't need property taxes at the local level in the same way that you don't need income taxes at the federal and state level to run the government. If the government were limited it wouldn't need to rely on property taxes, instead you could have sales taxes, user fees, commercial property taxes, etc..
I don't mind
paying for county-based services. I don't want my property held as collateral for the payment of those services. So, you are saying I should not have a right to own my property.
Can You Ever Really Own Real Property?
sorry, not in this country... (land of the free?)
One absolutely can, however,
One absolutely can, however, if they choose to remain ignorant of the law then they only hold a color of title.
RENT!
Property tax is simply the government charging rent on something the government does not own. It matters not how local that government may be.
This Should Help Put Things In Perspective
Or maybe just confuse you even more. Please visit the following link.
http://www.whoownstheworl...
YES YOU CAN BUT YOU MUST LEARN THE LAW
click on link and seek the truth and it will make you free...
http://www.best-fit-offsh...
you must obtain alloidial title to the propert then you own it
and it comes off the tax rolls...
It's erroneous...
.. to lump land and houses together. A house is something you make. The land is just there.
Also, "property" tax is a county issue and VERY local democracy.
A tax is just a legalized
A tax is just a legalized protection racket. It is the government's way of establishing ownership over anything that it taxes. Once they have established ownership, they can charge you rent, or "taxes" to maintain your possession of it. But anything that can be taxed can also be taken away by the simple expedient of raising the tax beyond what you can afford to pay. This is true of your house, your car, and even yourself. Government claims ownership of all these things, and you must pay to maintain possession of all of them, or die trying to defend against their theft.
www.paulforronpaul.com
home improvements
I'm trying to figure out how to charge the owner(holder of the title) for 90,000 worth of improvements. If I send him a bill will he pay? If I get paid I'll just improve more. Sounds like a win win proposition.
Property tax..
.. was one of the few taxes the Founding Fathers were for.
The Founding Fathers believed that property ownership was THE basis for freedom. They viewed property as the means of production. If a person can produce and keep the fruits of their labor they can control their own destiny and pursuit of happiness.
The Founding Fathers wanted as many people as possible to own property (the means of the production). They did not want people to amass large holdings of unproductive land thereby depriving others who might make that land useful and productive empowering their own freedom.
A small property tax was a way to penalize and discourage hoarding of land and the keeping of it in an unproductive state and at the same time out-of-the-reach of those who WOULD make it productive.
Notice that the first and preeminent principle of socialism/communism is to deprive persons of the ownership of property and the means of production and to confiscate the fruits of labor.
Of all the taxes I believe property tax is one of the "good ones". It is not responsible to hoard land in such an unproductive state that the owner is unable to even pay a small tax when there are many others who would gladly put the land to productive use....
What about squatter's rights?
As an individual you can't just buy up an entire state and then let it rot. Eventually someone will move onto your land and claim ownership. It is also in a land owner's best interest to use the land efficiently. As far as I know the only land hoarders are governments, because they don't care about things like squatter's rights or using land efficiently. Using property taxes to discourage hoarding doesn't make sense because you are penalizing the people that actually use the land and encouraging them to move to other counties that have no tax.
Well...
.. read about the "Elements" that need to be satisfied as a "preponderance of evidence" for squatters rights to be satisfied here:
http://legal-dictionary.t...
You will see that they largely depend on the owner having neglected the land and the squatter putting the land to productive use. For example:
"Physical acts must show that the possessor is exercising the dominion over the land that an average owner of similar property would exercise. Ordinary use of the property—for example, planting and harvesting crops or cutting and selling timber—indicates actual possession. In some states acts that constitute actual possession are found in statute."
Squatter's rights and property tax share the same philosophical and spiritual foundations: Land hoarding deprives people of the means of production and is antithetical to freedom for the masses of people.
We don't make land. Land is a common heritage for mankind. Unlike things we do produce such as houses, farm produce, textiles, etc.. We never really "own" land, we are just stewards of it.
U.S. tradition says that if we use land that another owner has deed to, but has neglected, then we are "exercising dominion over the land" and that we are then entitled to possession of it.
Squatter's rights and property tax(land tax) go hand-in-hand....
Even property tax can and is
Even property tax can and is being abused.
I was told by a friend that their uncle was paying something like 8 or 9 thousand dollars in property taxes per year for nothing more than a simple average home which was on probably less than a quarter acre. And their taxes in that area are slated to continue increasing. The reason: out of control government spending. The federal government is not the only government in this nation that can be abusive as well as fiscally irresponsible.
I agree..
.. the tax was meant to be small and only a "land tax", not a tax on something you build such as a house. You don't create land, it is just there and a heritage to all people. You never really own the land in the sense you might own a house or some other object. We are just stewards of the land.
Wrong!!!
"Of all the taxes I believe property tax is one of the "good ones". It is not responsible to hoard land in such an unproductive state..."
Why should a land owner be forced to use their property in any way someone or some other group deems suitable - in your example, to require owners to make their land "productive". If any given landowner has acquired their land legitimately IT IS THEIR LAND. Accordingly , landowners should be the ones to decide how their land is to be used - whether that be "productive" or otherwise - bearing in mind they cannot use it to create a legal "nuisance".
Then there is the danger that getting the foot in the door with property tax just allows for further encroachments on people's property rights. Good luck keeping the tax "small". Just look what happened to income tax after it was introduced.
And who decides what constitutes "productive"? Are you proposing putting property tax only on "non-productive" land? If so, just watch as local politicians find every use that doesn't conform to their development fantasies as "non-productive" and jack up the tax to force compliance.
To force payment of tax as a penalty for unproductive land use would compel those, such as indigenous peoples who wish to live off their land as they have for millenia apart from the money economy to participate in a modern economy they reject in order to pay property tax.
Just because some of the Founders may have approved of property taxes doesn't make it desirable. All taxes are theft - property tax no less than others.
marlow
All taxes are theft.
And all real property is theft. Who will protect your real property monopoly from righteous squatters? The government! That is why we have property tax - to pay for the enforcement of dubious real property rights. (I prefer no taxes and no subsidized enforcement of property rights, but that's just me.)
The best allocation of property tax is according to size not value. In the middle ages, this method encouraged the clustering of villages - a wise form of urban planning.
No thanks..
.. I take offense to being "clustered in villages". That is what the UN's Agenda 21 wants to do, force us out of the countryside and into urban "corridors". Sounds like you are trying to encourage socialism
Can you propose a more equitable and fair way to fund county government (the most localized democracy there is)?
I have no desire to return to medieval serfdom even if it has a fancy new name... =)
If you must have taxes,
then the most fair is community service. Everyone serves an equal period and is paid in local scrip. The scrip can then be used in lieu of community service. And, voila, you have just created a labor-backed currency.
A small community could do this and within a few short years reach the highest standard of living on earth. Of course, the Money Masters will soon put an end to it.
Okay...
.. so you disagree with the Founders AND Ron Paul. And you can yell "Wrong!!". Neat.
Also, you make up a rather complex strawman mythology laden with errors as contrasted to the known history and application of land tax in the US.
First of all, as the Constitution forbids direct taxes, land tax has always been a state and COUNTY issue. Primarily county. If you don't like your tax then vote your local county officials in or out of office. If that doesn't work, then either threaten to move to another county or just go ahead and move to another county. The competition will keep the counties honest.
Second, what work of fiction did you pull the idea of an active government role in "forcing" productive land use from? Or the idea of assessing the productivity of a given plot of land? The REALITY is that counties assess the value of the land and tax it proportionally. If the land is unimproved then the tax is LOWER. There is no extra penalty for the land not being productive. Again, if you don't like any of this then take it up with your county officials. We're talking VERY local democracy here.
In your model, a wealthy landowner could buy up 99% of a county, leave his land unproductive, and then require the people who live on the remaining 1% to fund the operation of the entire county. How fair. What a lovely world that would be. Me thinks the wealthy landowner would declare himself king.
With respect to indigenous people, the Federal government subsidizes the COUNTY taxes for those lands. Also, tribal lands are considered sovereign property are they not? The tribal governments are free to do as they wish.
I am not sure you understand the impact of what you are proposing and advocating. Under your "plan" a single wealthy person could, for example, buy up ALL the land in an entire state and deprive all other persons access or use of the land without ANYTHING motivating him to do otherwise.
That would return us to the European model of serfdom and slavery. The landed owners would become Supreme Tyrants. No thanks! I don't like your plan... at all. ;)
You nor I made the land. It is not like some tomatoes you grew. Or a wooden object you made from some replenishable trees. The land is a heritage that should be made available to as many as possible. People shouldn't have to grovel at the feet of land owner masters.
It would be a crime against humanity for a few wealthy people to own all the land and force all the other people into serfdom in exchange for access to the means of production and the chance to be free. The Founding Fathers were wise. They chose land tax as the way to fund local governments and import taxes to fund the federal. And it was just a good idea. =)
The Founding Fathers believed that access to and ownership of land was THE basis for freedom. There has to be something that encourages the widest distribution of land as possible. Land tax is that "something"...
We fundamentally disagree
You deny the legitimacy of land ownership, prefering "stewardship", whereby particular humans administer specific parcels of land, apparently on behalf of humanity as a whole.
I, by contrast, prefer to see everything privatized, including real property. In such an environment the free market would provide everything people need and want more morally and efficiently than any alternative. This would maximize consensual economic activity and minimize coercion. In other words, this is the economic aspect of natural liberty. I would apply these principles to local government as well as federal. Yes, my ideal is free market anarchism. Law itself can be privatised as historically much of it was.
Your example of someone - "a single wealthy person could, for example, buy up ALL the land in an entire state and deprive all other persons access or use of the land without ANYTHING motivating him to do otherwise" is just silly. In a free market, the sellers will only sell if they consider it to be to their advantage. Should there be someone so rich (which is absurd) they could buy all land in a state from its hundreds of thousands if not millions of landowners, these sellers, seeing such high demand on the part of the buyer, would push their asking prices higher - so high, infact, they could easily move elsewhere with a massive profit. And people by the millions would be doing this. The result is land values would skyrocket so much the would be land monopolist would be bankrupt long before he could realize his dream. In fact, the only way a country's land could be monopolized is through government power, granting a monopoly to favored interests or claiming full control over all the land itself.
Far from creating a society of enslaved serfs a free market in land would function like any other good - its prices and distribution of ownership would be determined by the buying and selling of the marketplace's millions of participants in accordance with their ever changing values. If prices are too dear people hold off buying till supply and demand readjust causing prices to fall (ignoring fiat currency inflation in this example).
It is precisely in government controlled areas (which I realize you do not endorse) where people do not own, hence cannot control the land, that we see poverty and starvation. Look at Stalin's deliberate starvation of millions of Ukranians, Mao's engineered famine killed tens of millions of Chinese. I prefer the complete opposite of these would be omnipotent states where the individual has no rights. I prefer maximum personal freedom which can only be achieved by exalting property rights, and those rights are diminished by government restrictions and taxes on them.
marlow
Not sure about ALL soveriegn territories...
With respect to indigenous people, the Federal government subsidizes the COUNTY taxes for those lands. Also, tribal lands are considered sovereign property are they not? The tribal governments are free to do as they wish.
That is perfectly true... until the Government takes the land and relocates you.
So while it is good in theory, in practice it has had bad results, historically.. ;(
I agree..
.. with regards to the US government taking the land. But that is an issue of lack of good faith and lack of honor. The US govt is just wrong (and evil in my opinion) when they break agreements and treaties like that. Kind of taints the whole "rule of law" thing. =P
Not sure I understand...
"The Founding Fathers believed that access to and ownership of land was THE basis for freedom. There has to be something that encourages the widest distribution of land as possible. Land tax is that 'something'..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "access to and ownership of land is THE basis for freedom" how can we be free if land we own can be taken from us for inability to pay taxes on it?
Perhaps...
... checking out the legal basis and philosophy behind "squatter's rights" will help illuminate the issue and provide a peek inside the thinking of the Founding Fathers:
http://legal-dictionary.t...
Sad and Sickening
My grandfather lost his house -- that he built himself -- in this very way. The house was paid for, the land was paid for...but years later,, when he couldn't cover the tax bill, the IRS helped themselves to his home, kthxbye.
Isn't there something called "alloidial title" (or something like that) which allows to you actually own your land and property outright?
Here is a good thread
Here is a good thread regarding just such a situation that your grandfather experienced:
http://www.teamlawproduct...
Yes there is alloidial
Yes there is alloidial title. Did you read the the information at the link I posted below? It all comes down to contracts, though. We, as a nation, have become completely ignorant of our true history and the law. America needs to wake up and learn the law and apply it. Once they we do that we can then move to remove ourselves from the contracts which we ignorantly entered into that now bind us and our property.
Michael Badnarick gets into allodial title in his
many part constitution course on youtube.
Here is part 1. http://www.youtube.com/wa...
He's amazing. Apparently the only place in the US where you can own allodial title today is Texas.
With regard to other property such as your vehicle, make sure you have the original title document. Then its yours to do with as you will. He explains that too.
Sadly in Canada there never has been allodial title though I think the first nations are getting something near it in their longstanding legal battles.
Not true regarding where one
Not true regarding where one can own allodial title. Any piece of land that the President or the Governor (in the case of Texas) issued a land patent on, the title is allodial.
The problem we see today is people have grown ignorant of what land is and what real estate is. People think they are the same and they are not. Land is the physical space and all the rights that are in the land patent stand true today just as they did when the patent or grant was issued.
Real estate, on the other hand, is paper contract with the color of title which lays over the land and encompasses the chattel and real property that sits upon the land.
Land made patent can not be taken for taxes or debts. However, the land patent does not change ones ability to contract and that is exactly what one sees with real estate.
Here in the US people really don't own their property because they didn't purchase it. Rather the true owner of the land and property is the U.S. General Trust Fund, due to people ignorantly using the Social Security Administration's trust fund number (SS#). People operate everyday in this trustee capacity and believe it is they that are acting.
http://teamlaw.org/land.h...
true
you never own your property, which is why advise never to pay off your house....it is better to lose it, with just some blood, sweat, and tears involved than all of it....they will get it eventually, and wouldn't it be sad to lose it for a few hundred dollars of taxes you can't afford because our government and the fed backrupted this country and brought about the worst depression in history
Read this short course on
Read this short course on Land Patents:
http://www.teamlawproduct...
Go into local politics
Kick out the solicitors and engineers who are bumping up your property taxes.
Push for the schools to become privatized charter schools.
Finally ask for all the records of accounting from the people you're paying taxes to, take out an ad in the local paper about all the pork barrel spending-literally millions of that money go towards lawyers who don't do anything and "experts" who approve zoning.