The problems with property taxes- an opening discussion
Beauty is only skin deep.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
When it comes to property tax appraisals in Dayton- both of these come into play. However, neither is helping us.
I’ve heard people say: “I don’t want to fix up the outside of my house because the property taxes will go up” and they are perfectly right. However, their home values may drop in the meantime.
I’ve heard people complain that their neighbors fixed up their houses and it cost them more, because their property taxes wend up, and they’re right too- but, their home may have appreciated thanks to their neighbors’ work.
Right now, with property values in a state of flux due entirely to factors beyond our control (thanks to the “casinoization of Wall Street”) an appraisal of your home value for sale or for tax value is as accurate as a corporate valuation by a rating service just before the crash- remember that 2 weeks before AIG folded, someone gave it a premium rating.
Just because someone is willing to pay a price for my home, according to an appraiser, it may not be worth it. There is no scientific system in place, it’s like arguing over who the greatest baseball player ever was- it’s all conditional.
How should we build a fair, honest, property tax valuation system? One that will do what the current system fails to do- namely, increase everybody’s wealth and make our community stronger.
Right now, we’re continuing to build new inventory, while our population is shrinking. This causes oversupply, and causes prices to drop. If we realized this, we’d put a cap on the number of homes that can be built when population is not growing, or require the removal of real estate from the market to allow new construction. Call it a cap and trade system for homes.
Secondly, what decides property value? Raj Soin has had a running argument with Greene County that his mansion isn’t worth that much to anyone but him- and he may be right. But, then again, the former Hook estate was looked at as a pink elephant when it was owned by the county- which gave it away, only to have a savior pump a lot of money into it and restore it- only to have its property tax go up (after the abatement ends). Should taxes penalize someone for fixing something up? Obviously not- since we want nice neighborhoods.
Since buildings are one of the leading consumers of energy, which is of finite supply, and has environmental consequences for all of us- maybe we should look at taxation based on energy consumption? Sound like the Fair Tax argument?
While we may want to look the other way about the cost of heating and cooling homes- in the long run, that’s what costs all of us. Wars are fought over fossil fuels (mostly oil) and with the environmental damage affecting everything from the oceans to our crops, we’ve got to start being proactive.
I had originally thought that an equation of square footage, year built, and condition of the home should be factors to use, but when I thought about age of homes- and conditions, value judgments came to play. I like old homes better- others like new. Where do we set the premium. From a basic accounting/depreciation standpoint, old homes require more upkeep- and the value over time decreases- but, then again, you have something like the Hook estate make it too complicated.
But, then again- does that mean an empty home, that uses little energy is a good thing? Not at all. We want people, preferably employed in our community- living in those homes. Without people, homes are worthless, they become a liability. Not only that, but higher density living (more people per square foot) is more efficient. The American dream of a single family home is actually hurting us because of the energy demands. So, the more people in a building, the better it is for the community- as long as it is still a useful steward of energy. Efficiency should be rewarded.
We also need to look at commuting costs- since transportation is another way we burn fuel. If we rewarded both homeowners with lower property taxes for living closer to work (or working from home- or using public transport) we’d burn less fuel. If we rewarded commercial properties based on the number of people they employ who live close- we’d incentivize Here In My Backyard as opposed to the Not In My Backyard type connections to the community. I proposed a “walk to work tax credit” idea long ago on this site, right after seeing “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Healthy communities in the future have to find different ways to do the things they’ve always done. Choosing how to tax people and their property has to be not only fair- but as a way to further goals of the whole community. Getting people to use less energy is critical to our nation’s survival and future growth.
While the condition of a home is all a matter of opinion, the amount of water, gas, electricity used, per person in a building- and their commutes to and from work, are all a matter of record- and it would put you in charge of what your tax impact will be, not some appraiser. All of a sudden, those new “Lite House” green homes on Patterson start to make a lot more sense.
I’m just starting my idea process on this matter, I’d like your help and input. Do you have better ideas on how to properly and fairly value real estate for taxation? If you do, please contribute to the conversation in the comments.
Thanks
Another issue with tax appraisals is that they assume everything inside the house is in working order – so a house that has been stripped of all its copper piping and electrical wiring and has substantial damage due to a lack of heat or air conditioning, is deemed the same inside as a newly remodeled home next door. And you have those that complain about their taxes being driven up because of the work done on a house next door – but what about the finished house next door who is losing value because of the hellhole next to it? Then you get to historic homes and it really gets interesting. I’ve always felt we should create a standardized weighting system for historic homes – i.e. you get maximum credit for having original, unpainted woodwork and lose a little if it’s original but painted, original put painted 100 times or it’s been replaced with something from Lowes. Then there’s the difference in workmanship between Mr DIY and a professional contractor. The biggest problem MD & I have had in South Park is that we are replacing ALL of the mechanicals – all the wiring, plumbing, fixtures, faucets, switches, etc. A typical homeowner will replace the plumbing in the kitchen or the bathroom, but not the entire house. And then we can talk about how the tax appraisals are pretty much done on a driveby, dashboard glance – no one is getting inside the house to see what has truly been done. We know what problems this approach caused when bank appraisals did drivebys and were deeming a $10,000 house to be worth $85,000. So I don’t know what the answer is. Your concept of energy consumption is intriguing but does that mean that the Dayton home of a snow bird who spends 3-6 months out of the year in FL is worth less than one occupied 12 months out of the year? What would Jon Husted’s Kettering home be worth? (ooh, bad TG, bad bad TG). Or is a home worth more because of less energy consumption when the reason is… Read more »
Thanks TG. Hadn’t thought about the snowbirds- but why shouldn’t they get a lower tax rate, they use less services when not here.
As to comments that are posted on facebook (which I wish wouldn’t happen- please comment here) about penalizing old homes, because these homes aren’t built as far away from jobs- like homes in Springboro- etc, their taxes would be less on the commuting side- also, the homes tend to be smaller. We’d also require new home builders to take older homes out of inventory, or pay for energy credits that would be used to lower energy consumption costs for less efficient homes. The goal is to move to using less energy to commute and to heat and cool our homes- and to give a fair value. Using tracking indicators from year to year – you would get credits for improving energy efficiency as well.
Old homes don’t have to be drafty, if you do them right btw.
Why fix what’s inherently flawed?
Property taxes are regressive. No matter how much you tweak (i.e., complicate and convolute) them, you wind up burdening some unfairly. People on fixed incomes, businesses (farms) that require extensive property, people who choose a larger home–these all get penalized in different ways.
It’s irrevocably unfair.
The only convenient tax that’s fair is a bracketed income tax with zero loopholes. That means no credits, deductions, alternative minimums, or other tinkering. This tax would take from disposable incomes, it would expect the wealthy to bear a greater load because (a) they are able (b) they’ve benefited most from being in our society (c) they’re the ones who cost us most, especially when it’s bail-out time.
Additionally, a simple income tax would reduce the costs of tax collections. No more Karl Keith and his staff doing guesswork about home values. No more small businesses burdened by sales taxes. An IRS that can focus almost all of its attention on enforcement, with a 1040 form that fits on a postcard and requires no user’s manual.
Oh, yes, some people will squawk over how high the income tax rates need to be to make up for the disappearance of other taxes. But why can’t people be educated: one simple and fair tax that’s levied according to ability to pay is going to save a small fortune in collections, remove uncertainty about how much is due, and provide a predictable basis for projecting revenues. In aggregate, we’d be paying less, using less of our time doing paperwork, and potentially getting more in return.
Hi Thomas- good input- but, the reality is, taxes are a tool to adjust social policy. Not necessarily about wealth redistribution, but about providing services to all of us- not just based on ability to pay. Think about it- luxury taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, tariffs on imports- all are ways to balance things. Gas taxes are supposed to pay for roads- which they did too well, and now we drive way more than we should.
At some point, we have to realize that property requires infrastructure- and that infrastructure requires upkeep. Income tax alone doesn’t connect to those infrastructure needs.
How about a consumer tax only system.
Tax everything consumable.
No more tax loop holes, no more children tax credits, marriage penalty taxes.
Don’t want to pay taxes, don’t buy stuff.
This would allow the fixed income to maintain their homes, this would place the school taxes on those with children, place the road repairs on those who drive and so on.
Shannon – good thought. Other states are already doing that. I believe Texas and Nevada possibly. I just wonder if it’s truly effective for them or if in solving one problem, they’ve created another. Does anyone know?
Of course, one of the biggest obstacles to simplifying tax code is that it could cost a lot of tax accountants and attorneys to lose their jobs so they’ll push back.
David, when you post on FB, you run the risk of comments on FB. Ditto Twitter. Property tax is all a county issue– and it is a thorny one no matter what community. While you have some interesting ideas, they are basically pipe dreams. (Hm, there might be a pun intended there.) I’d like to see a moratorium on new building in this community, unless the builders have a have real justification that can withstand sharp scrutiny. I’d like to see a more pro-active rather than punitive approach to code enforcement. I’d like to see more adaptive re-use, Dayton Public Schools needs to have their knuckles rapped hard. I’d like to see the city of Dayton mow their own damn grass.
@Larkin – I agree with the moratorium on new construction for a while, but would offer this compromise. In exchange for the permits to build something new, the same developer must commit to taking something else off line and maintaining it. So if someone wants to build a new office tower downtown, they’d have to demolish an old one, make it green space and landscape & maintain it.
If we had a regional form of government, we could expand it along the lines of for every new home or subdivision built in the burbs, the same amount of land must be cleared and maintained in the City limits. And the reason I would use land size vs number of houses is because we have more density downtown than in the burbs.
I think Youngstown is doing something like this based on a presentation I heard the other day. I just haven’t had the chance to research it further and study the details. This way if the population does want to move south or east, that’s fine, but we need to get into the mindset that you have to dispose of the obsolete before building something new.
tg-
I understand your point, but it makes the blood of a preservationist run cold. Perhaps developers should be required to restore something (the ultimate recycling) before they’re allowed to build something new. There’s a little paperback (part of a series) on historic Dayton. Page after page shows one wonderful building after another that’s been demolished for a parking lot.
On the other hand, I do think that corporations should not be allowed to abandon buildings either. The Wal-Marts and Rite Aids should have one year to find a tenant. If they don’t find a tenant in that time, they should be required to tear down the box and remove all asphalt and paving at their expense and landscape the lot that’s left behind.
Larkin – I knew when I did a quick post, that might be the first reaction. I agree that restoration is ideal. I’m a practical preservationist, but without an infinite pool of resources to restore every historical property, strategic decisions will need to be made.
I was thinking more along the lines you are describing. It irks me every time I drive down Smithville near Wayne to see the abandoned RiteAid that the Dabel Theatre was demolished for – and they ultimately deserted it to open one a half mile down the road. Lacking a tenant, they should be required to demolish it and maintain a landscaped green or park area.
I think GM should be required to do the same thing with their plant if a replacement automaker or suitable occupant is not found. And they should be forced to deal with any brownfield issues they may have caused.
I’ve heard people say: “I don’t want to fix up the outside of my house because the property taxes will go up” and they are perfectly right.
If this is a widespread attitude it would be one reason why Dayton looks so shabby.
I put $25,000 of external improvements into my house in mid-2007 (roof, gutters, siding) and the value still dropped by 13%.
Frankly, the county still has my house listed as wood frame exterior and I don’t think anyone actually reviewed the reappraisal. But that’s another story.
Val – some investments like yours really do not add value to a house every time – unless you bought a house cheap that needed a roof and gutters and siding, and those things were sort of “deducted” from the price – then it may add value. But if you bought a house with an OK roof , gutters and siding then the value is only to you, really. It may appreciate a little, depending on where you live, but putting in (not that you did this, but an example) $100 door knobs and $1000 doors and spent a grand on paint and new tile floors that look better (etc.) and these thing were not “needed” then the value does not really go up.
House values are based mostly on where you live, square footage, and the bones of a place. Houses may sell easier if they look nice, but that falls into a personal “utility” category that may or may not increase a value of a house.
The shows we see on TV are for markets and areas that are generally desirable to live, therefore they get more money bc of supply and demand (maybe not in today’s market, but in the past.) Dayton is not a desirable place to live by the VAST MAJORITY of people who live in Montgomery County and Ohio.
Heck, even Oakwood has a huge inventory of houses for sale. Past years typical inventory was 25 to 50 houses tops, well its in the 140 neighborhood now. Supply and Demand is the name of the game folks.
Basing property taxes on energy usage is, I think, a good idea. I see only two major problems with it, but I don’t think either is insurmountable. First, anyone designing the tax assessment must become intimately familiar with the policy and procedure currently set by the Public Utilities Commission. And that’s not an easy thing to do. The Commission already regulates rates that energy utilities (and other utilities) can charge in Ohio. Those rates (I believe) include certain taxes. So it would be important to design the property tax assessment to eliminate the possibility of double taxation. Also, the Commission seems to have recently adopted a strange policy of setting rates for electric and gas utilities to include a larger base charge (over %400 larger in some cases) and a smaller volumetric rate. Basically, that means that many electric utilities in Ohio are collecting a larger amount each month just for delivering service, while consumers (still paying the large base charge) pay less for the amount of electricity and natural gas that they use. This situation seems to place less emphasis on conservation (because it de-emphasizes the difference in the bill between consumers who use a lot and those who use less). A system of property taxation that is based on energy consumption would (I think) seem to be at odds with this policy. So what I mean is, you’d have to figure a way with the property tax system to NOT send residential consumers two different messages — and that would probably mean some kind of negotiation with the PUCO (and they’re not famous for their negotiative affinity). (by the way, that new PUCO policy is currently on appeal — but it doesn’t look good. The Supreme Court recently denied the Consumer Counsel’s request for a stay of execution of those new PUCO orders. That’s a bad omen.) Second, a property tax assessment based on energy usage should somehow take into account the various intricacies of utility usage. What I mean is, it would have to somehow figure that energy in some homes is supplied entirely by electrical utilities,… Read more »
The “distance to jobs” approach is flawed because in suburbia, the jobs are chasing rooftops which are chasing jobs which are chasing rooftops….
Perhaps a “distance to your regional core” measurement? That encourages the urban growth and walkability at the same time. Everything in Mongtomery County could be measured from 3rd and Main.
How would basing property taxes on energy usage work for apartment buildings? It’s the landlords, not the tenants, who pay the property taxes, but it’s the tenants, not the landlords, who use the energy. Of course rents would rise if property taxes rose, so tenants might have some vague incentive to conserve energy in order to keep property taxes on their building down in order to prevent rent hikes, but it wouldn’t be as strong an incentive as a homeowner would have.
Perhaps the property taxes on an apartment building could be prorated amongst the tenants based on their energy usage, but then tenants would deserve some sort of decrease in their rent since their rent would no longer be covering the property taxes, and how would you figure exactly how much to reduce the rent? Not based on the prorated shares of the property tax because that would negate the whole prorating thing.
And if you throw in water as “energy” since it’s a resource the conservation of which one might want to incentivize, that throws another wrench in the works for many buildings. In my building, water is included in the rent and they don’t have individual water meters for each apartments, so there’d be no way to prorate property taxes based on tenants’ differing water usages.
Tax per lot size. That’s “fair” and that’s Property tax. The real value of the vast majority of land- commercial, residential, agricultural, doesn’t matter- the real value is the land itself, not the building. Buildings can be replaced, land cannot. Buildings, tillable soil, these can increase desirability of a particular parcel of land, but not real value. There are exceptions, of course, but not many.
Now, if you want to engineer communities and raise money based on behaviors that you, or the next wave of politician values, that can be done, but don’t call it fair property tax, just call it… What? Behavioral tax?
Meh. Highly unpopular idea. Won’t get you elected. Prolly should just move on… :-)
Not according to my tax bill – received today. My land is 20% of the value, my house 80%
Lot size will not cut it.
@david L. Apartments win because they get credit for density. More people, less energy per person- because your common walls work to insulate.
Single family homes are a huge waste of energy.
As to incentives for tenants- lower rents, for more efficent users. We have to become energy aware. Programmable thermostats should be mandatory. Low volume flush toilets- with dual flush. I was at the building supply stores this weekend- dual flush (more water for number 2, less for number 1) were barely evident.
@Teri- all taxes manipulate behavior. Get over it.
David,
IKEA has dual flush toilets in their rest-rooms. Do they sell them also? I know they carry appliances and so forth, so a toilet wouldn’t be that unlikely, would it?
>all taxes manipulate behavior. Get over it.
Exactly my point.
You said:
>Do you have better ideas on how to properly and fairly value real estate for taxation?
I respond: Yes, I do: Fair property tax couldn’t be easier- per square foot of lot size. Anything beyond that is behavioral and will be unfair to someone. Sorry, I got caught up on the word property, which isn’t really what you want to discuss. You want to discuss, and tax, behaviors… By the very nature of the conversation, your ideas are going to punish some, reward others. Okay then. Have that discussion, but let’s please don’t call it fair or property, as you are discussing neither.
@teri
Fair? Is it fair if you build a house miles away from the rest of the homes- and then require the city to provide services and infrastructure? Are you shouldering all costs? No? How is that fair?
Square footage- is a barn the same value as a hotel?
In the end, the true impact of supporting a community comes down to efficient use of resources- which are finite. Those could be police or fire response teams, water, trash- if you don’t think this is an issue, look at what is happening with water in the South West and trash in the East.
Property taxes are to support the infrastructure, and the infrastructure is what eats up resources. You use more- you pay more, what could be simpler?
OK, so Tax Water and Electric services?
“Pay as you go” !?!??!
David-
I’m being vague- my apologies.
All taxes are unfair, but property taxes are in particular because they prevent anyone from actually owning their home. We are all renters for life, regardless of what the bank says about it. Disagree? Try not paying property taxes and you’ll find yourself evicted from the home you “own”, the same way you would be if you didn’t pay rent to your landlord.
It’s disturbing how everyone here is so focused on trying to find the best way to control other people’s lives and pocketbooks. Eliminate property taxes, and you’ll find that folks are much more willing to improve their homes.
@michael
Technically. property taxes are for infrastructure to support your home. Roads, water mains, gas lines, electric grid, police, fire etc…
However, we’ve added all kinds of other things into the mix. It’s become a real mess.
I’m all ears if you have a better way of funding all that other stuff.
@David
I know what the purpose of the taxes is, but that doesn’t detract from my point. The entire concept of property taxes means that you don’t own your home, but are merely renting it from the local government.
As for funding services and infrastructure, it’s clear that we want water, roads, etc anyway, so we shouldn’t have a problem paying for it on our own or perhaps as a neighborhood (voluntarily).
@ Michael: You stated: The entire concept of property taxes means that you don’t own your home, but are merely renting it from the local government.
HUH?
Tell the banks that ? Tell the Mortgage Companies? Tell the Realtors?
How does one hold a morgage?
– and how do those people buy and sell their homes otherwise?
Is not a tax…simply a levy of proportiaon, a millage?
Property tax can be defined as “generally, tax imposed by municipalities upon owners of property within their jurisdiction based on the value of such property.”[1] Wikepedia
Thus, I am afraid that you have a failed argument Michael?
Bob VL – a property owner and tax payer
@Bob
I am a renter right now, paying a rather hefty sum per month to my landlord. Should I fail to pay him, he will have me evicted by force, as is his right.
Anyone who pays property tax is also renting. You might call it “tax”, but the function is the same as rent. Should you fail to pay your tax/rent, your landlord (the local government) will evict you by force.
The principle is the same.
Anyone (such as a bank) who holds a mortgage is also responsible for paying tax/rent to the government, so they can never truly own the property either. Thus, we’re all passing around and selling deeds with claims of ownership, when in fact the government has the final say about who really owns your home.
The property taxes as rent analogy works but only to a certain extent. Renters don’t build up equity in their homes (well I suppose these days homeowners don’t either). Homeowners have more rights about what to do with their property (want to tear down a wall in your apartment to make it more open?). Renters have fewer maintenance headaches (if my ceiling leaks, all I gotta do is call my landlord).
You could take the taxes analogy to a further extreme and say that we’re all just renting our lives. If you fail to pay your income taxes, the government will repossess your body and put you in jail.
Argue that property taxes aren’t the best way to fund common services. Argue that it’d be better for people in a neighborhood to pay for maintaining the roads in their neighborhood by all chipping in and paying a private contractor. Perhaps even argue that homeowners could decide for themselves whether to buy “fire insurance” (if you don’t buy fire insurance from a private company then that private company won’t come put out a fire at your house), or argue that homeowners could decide for themselves whether to pay for private security (if you don’t, then you got no one to call when someone breaks into your house).
But arguing that property taxes are unfair because they’re rent is rather pointless.
HEAR HEAR
David Lauri is Right ON!
Bob VL
As someone who lives in what is officially designated a “private” development, but who still pays full taxes, it ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. We’re “private” because our developer took some short cuts that favored his short term financial position and left the neighbors with long term issues. We pay for our own snow removal, we pay to repave our roads, we pay to landscape the common areas. On top of paying some of the highest property taxes in the state, since Beavercreek doesn’t have a city income tax. That being said, our developer also paid the City more than a decade ago to add sidewalks along Hanes Road and it has yet to be done, but we’re also not getting the money back to do them ourselves. Nor do we collect interest on that money, it was spent a long, long time ago.
But all of this is our choice too. We could ultimately gate ourselves off from everyone else, but we’re not willing to pay for that – because then trash, mail & school bus deliveries would all be impacted. But for some reason, we also have no choice as far as the City is concerned to change our status, because they say our streets aren’t wide enough for their snow plows. Really, are they that much wider that school busses or garbage trucks or semis?
I’m also one of the relative few who doesn’t mind paying taxes because I want police, fire, water, sewer, roads, bridges & highways. if you don’t want to pay taxes, just remember that you get what you pay for!
Renters don’t build up equity in their homes (well I suppose these days homeowners don’t either).
LOL. Thanks for rebutting it for me :-) Americans have been brought up to think that houses are special things that always increase in value and are a way to store wealth, but this is a huge myth. Houses are simply durable consumer goods….they age, go out of style, need repairs, and require lots of maintenance the same way that cars, boats, computers, and shoes do. Why should they be taxed as if they’re special?
You could take the taxes analogy to a further extreme and say that we’re all just renting our lives. If you fail to pay your income taxes, the government will repossess your body and put you in jail.
Exactly! This couldn’t be more true. The question is also “Who owns you?”. Just as the drug war says that we don’t own our bodies, and the income tax says we don’t own our labor, our property taxes say we don’t own our property.
But arguing that property taxes are unfair because they’re rent is rather pointless.
I’m not arguing that they’re unfair, but that they’re evil. What other thing do you own that you have to pay a tax on each year? I have a little motorbike here where I live and pay about 10 bucks a year tax, but that’s for the plates (wouldn’t need this on private property).
The fact is that we’re all slaves to some extent. The plantation is much nicer, and the master doesn’t beat us as much, but we’re basically serfs paying tribute to our overlords who then provide us with services whether we want them or not.
So I’m confused about where you’re going with all this, Michael. Are you advocating for the removal of all taxes and of all government? If so, paint me a clearer picture of how you think that would work. If not, be clearer about what it is you’re advocating for.
(I’m afraid I’ve caused the thread to stray a bit…)
How would what work?
If you mean services, infrastructure, etc….it would work the same way any other service we purchase works.
If there is a way to have a government that doesn’t use force to steal from the populace, then I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, it’s evil because government is force, and I don’t wish to use force on anyone.
What I’m advocating is a voluntary society, and I think that Dayton could do great things were it to move in this direction. Young people go places where they find more freedom, not necessarily sexy jobs. If Dayton is a place where people know that they can be free from government intrusion the region will draw folks that fit this mold and keep those that “go West” to find freedom and a new life.
Full disclosure: I no longer live in Dayton, the place of my birth and upbringing, as I left when I was 23 and moved to Asia (still here). I did so because I found not only Ohio, but the U.S. in general, to be highly oppressive and moving away from freedom, not towards it (as we have here). Lately I’ve been reading a lot on Dayton just to keep up with things, and it’s frustrating to watch.
Ah, so you are advocating for the removal of all taxes and all government.
Well if you ever decide to write a book about this utopia, I’ll check it out of the library because I’d be interested to read a detailed and thought out description of the society you advocate. Perhaps as a first step towards writing your book, you could blog about various aspects of this utopian society without government and taxes (and evil and force, even force to counteract evil). [Definitions 1 and 3 of utopia from m-w.com seem particularly apt in this discussion: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopia%5D
I’ll certainly grant you that Dayton and Ohio and the United States and Western culture are not perfect, but even as a gay man who’s constitutionally in Ohio a second class citizen I don’t consider myself highly oppressed. I’ll continue to pick Dayton over Iran or Saudi Arabia or China, though perhaps some day I might move away from Dayton.
Where in Asia do you live, Michael? What things do you find more free and less oppressive there?
“Utopia” is always the charge leveled at people who want to live free. Is it Utopian to not want to have things stolen from you, whether it’s your body, labor, or property? Why is it Utopian to want to be peaceful with my neighbors and have them, in turn, be peaceful with me? American cultureloves to put down practical, peaceful people with the ad hominem Utopia slur. Remember, the right uses the same argument when they want to start a war somewhere: “Well, it would be GREAT if we could just talk to our evil enemies, but we’re not living in a Utopia here. This is the real world, where we have to use force to get our way.” Both the left and right are very similar in this way, in that they both advocate the use of force for their own pet projects: “Well, it would be GREAT if we could just get everyone to voluntarily pay for services, but we’re not living in a Utopia here. This is the real world, where we have to use force to get our way.” Right now I live in Japan (Tokyo) which, while not perfect by any means, is a much more open place. I own a business here and have a nice, peaceful life. Mike Rogers explains it well here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers183.html It’s hard to explain, but when I go back to Ohio the atmosphere is thick and hostile compared to here. As soon as you get off the plane you are being ordered around by cops and customs people in harsh tones, and police in general are often trying to escalate situations. In Japan, police are trained to de-escalate a situation and calm things down. Silly laws related to alcohol don’t exist at all….you can buy whisky in a convenience store 24/7, and drink and dance in a club all night long. No “last call” at 2:00. Some bars/retaurants prohibit smoking, though most don’t, but it’s your choice as a bar owner. As a gay man, you could certainly do better than Ohio if you’re looking for a tolerant atmosphere.… Read more »
@Michael, thanks for joining us from Tokyo.
I believe our “vice laws” are insane. If we took our “war on drugs” out of the equation- America would have less people in prison, lower crime rates, and potentially- a really vibrant new tax base.
The points that Mike Rogers makes about out infant mortality rate, our mortality rates, our incarceration rates, tax rates and most painfully- our military budgets, all go to show what our true priorities in the USA are.
It’s not the people.
That being said- America still is a land that welcomes diversity- and don’t tell me that Americans are given the same respect in Japan. The day a black man gets elected in Japan- I’ll change my tune.
I’m all for changing our stupid liquor laws. In Italy you can get booze on your ice cream- without an ID card (I don’t drink btw).
The system has gone catywampus here- with CEOs making millions while putting people out of work. The president of Sony is an American- and making under a million a year- proof that it can be done. However, as long as we run auctions masquerading as elections, we’ll be doomed.
I hope to change that- slowly.
Thanks again.
I’ve lived abroad, thanks, in Germany, so I know where there is greener grass.
My point is that people who say things like “abolish all taxes and all government” without describing realistically how such a thing could work or even be accomplished are just wasting bandwidth. Tell me I’m stupid for calling your ideas utopian if you like, Michael; I’m telling you you’re stupid for not being able to persuade anyone how your ideas will work.
@DavidE Thanks!
@DavidL I’m sorry that you think I was calling you “stupid”. I don’t believe that my tone reflected that.
I’m telling you you’re stupid for not being able to persuade anyone how your ideas will work.
I don’t understand what “work” means. Eliminate the income tax, and we now own more of our labor…that’s how freedom works. I’m more concerned with getting the government to do LESS not more, so the less they’re trying to make things work, the better.
I don’t understand what “work” means.
Work, function, be implemented, carry on, operate. What I’d like and what you seem unable to give me is a description of how a society without taxes, without government, without force of any kind would work, function, run.
I don’t care if you think I’m stupid. In fact, I wish you would talk to me as if you thought I were stupid and thus you had to explain yourself very clearly and deliberately. Whether you intended to call me stupid or not because I called your ideas utopian missed my point completely. I called your ideas utopian because I don’t understand how they could work or come to fruition.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by whether something works. We have interstate highways on which people drive their cars from city to city and state to state. These roads were built and are maintained by state transportation departments funded by federal and state and local governments. One may argue that this isn’t the best way to accomplish the goal of allowing for interstate travel but one can’t argue that it doesn’t “work” because it does “work” in that lots of people drive all over the country. Could it “work” better? Perhaps. Could it “work” worse? Absolutely. But it “works.”
Now do you get what the meaning of the verb “work” means?
So tell me. I asked you, “Are you advocating for the removal of all taxes and of all government?” Is that what you’re advocating? How would it work? By which I mean, describe, for example, how we’d maintain our interstate highways without any taxes or government. Or describe, for example, how serial killers would be caught, apprehended and brought to justice without any taxes or government. Can you?
Continuous taxes on property is the same as paying rent – yet it is needed (taxes are needed) and to eliminate property taxes only means we would be taxed in a different area. We never truly own our homes. Yes, that sucks, but of all the things you can negotiate (somewhat) is property tax. You can chose to live in a place that is less expensive, so therefore less taxes (yet less personal utility.) If you don’t want to pay income tax, don’t work. That seems to be the norm in Dayton anymore.
We tax those that produce, give to those who do not or screw up, and most of you think it is somewhat fair. Truth is, it will never be fair. And taxes on consumption seems great at first, but so many people already circumvent sales tax that it would only get worse if taxes increase.
We need less taxes across the board, and we need to have less service. Keep only ESSENTIAL services. Liberals think everything is essential. Well it ain’t so.
We only need a few things from our government, and our government needs to be SMALLER.
Smaller is better (in terms of government) and people keeping more of THEIR money is always, always better. It is time for people to help themselves rather than rely on our government.
Government Services are a joke. I don’t use 98% of what the government offers, yet I pay for it all the time. Not fair. Never will be.
@ Gene We need less taxes across the board, and we need to have less service. Keep only ESSENTIAL services. Liberals think everything is essential. Well it ain’t so. Agreed. For example, we don’t need a military because camping out in 150 countries around the world isn’t an essential service for protecting America. Conservatives don’t understand that side though. @David “Are you advocating for the removal of all taxes and of all government?” Is that what you’re advocating? How would it work? By which I mean, describe, for example, how we’d maintain our interstate highways without any taxes or government. Or describe, for example, how serial killers would be caught, apprehended and brought to justice without any taxes or government. Can you? Of course, but we’re getting into dangerous territory here explanation-wise. – Roads & Highways: Should be private. In Dayton’s case, it might be best to just turn roads over to the property owners bordering them. Either that, or sell them. Highways could easily be sold, and charged for with tolls, especially with modern radio-based toll systems that don’t require stopping. – Serial killers: In the absence of police, would everyone just let serial killers run around? Private police groups and insurance companies would surely have it in their interest to protect their customers, and I think they’d do a much more efficient job than today’s police which mostly act as clean-up crew rather than protection. The “justice” angle is more difficult though in that it requires taking rights away from an individual, albeit that person did the same to their victims. I wouldn’t call this “anarchism” because that invokes images of baklava-clad leftists breaking department store windows. Rather, I’d side with the term “voluntaryism” for a society based on voluntary participation and cooperation. Have a neighbor who doesn’t want to help pay for local services? Social pressure can do a lot in this case, and is preferable to throwing the guy in jail for not paying taxes. Make sense? My point is that I have no problem with people organizing to get services together. My problem is when… Read more »
I love a large military. I love that they train a lot of people for different things. Yet we do not need to spend as much as we do on defense.
We spend, federally, most on defense then human resources. Both should/could be cut in half.
Heck, most everything should start with half. Half the budget. Half the services. I get to pay half of my current taxes. YES, I would be suppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppper happy with that!
Hit the “p” button 74 too many times……… but it was worth it.
Now I gots to “P” !
I love a large military. I love that they train a lot of people for different things.
Well, “liberals” love a big government as well, but just doing different things. Such as “service organizations” like Americorp that also “train people”. At least those things don’t involve killing people in other countries, but they do involve socialist indoctrination. “Liberals” and “Conservatives” are two ends of the same statist stick, one that wants the guns to move social agendas, and one that wants the guns to enforce state authority.
How do conservatives love small government? They never have!
I want our military cut in half……. it still would be large (and strong.)
Conservatives DO want a smaller government…… just not the military. But I am not a conservative, I am a Libertarian.
I want smaller government. You “quoting” me was fine, but you did not finish the quote.
Killing people is BS, and our military overseas is BS as well. A true libertarian would let other countries fight it out. As far as I know, most counties side with us if things got bad. I really don’t care what happens in other countries, minus genocide, but that is their pot to stir, not our. We (USA) should not be the police for the world.
A strong military can be had without occupying any county. Sure, that will never happen. But we could and should leave 90% of the countries we are in now.
Conservatives drop the ball. Liberals just drop it more often.
Think about it……… we had BO and John McCain to choose from. GWB and Kerry? GWB and Gore? Fuck, we were screwed from the start. Clinton? GHWB? It never ends.
A true American would like choices that reflect their opinions. We have two sides. That is it. For 300 million people…….. 200 of which can vote. Two SIDES? Shit, we have 19 options for value meals at McDonald’s. 847 Different cars to choose from. ICE CREAM……. JELLY, …….. JAM…… BREAD….. endless, almost, with lots of variety.
Political parties that get elected……………………?…………………….. TWO.
I have two hands. I get to choose which hand to pick my nose with. Two feet…… I get to choose one or the other to kick someones ass. But TWO legitimate/electable parties…?… And we wonder why we are fucked.
We shall be fine. We would be better with, say, 8 or 10 real/electable parties. But we let these two drive the bus so long that it will always be a two ring circus. Maybe Italy is better…?…
There are so many directions we could go with what you’ve said, but I want to backtrack to my description of your idea as a “utopia,” Michael.
Since you had so much trouble understanding what “work” means, let me be clear about what “utopia” means. Merriam-Webster’s third definition of “utopia,” to which I directed you earlier, says a utopia is “an impractical scheme for social improvement.” “Practical” is “capable of being put to use or account” and thus “impractical” is the opposite of that. I called your vague idea of having no taxes, no government, no force a “utopia” because I think it’s impractical; I don’t believe you have any chance of implementing this in your lifetime.
So rather than getting bogged down in discussions of whether corporations really do “have it in their interest to protect their customers” or whether “social pressure” could really keep people from driving on highways for which they haven’t paid their share, can you talk, Michael, about how my calling your idea utopian is incorrect? Do you have a plan for bringing your idea to fruition? How will you convince everyone to adopt your scheme?
@Gene – Libertarians, aside from the fake Neal Boortz variety, believe in the non-aggression principle and don’t support a strong standing army.
@David
I think that your reliance on the dictionary is detracting from any of your points.
My point is that I don’t need to convince everyone of any scheme. In fact, I don’t even have a scheme or any sort of plan. If, over time, enough people such as myself start to ignore the government and act in their own interests without using the state’s guns, we’ll reach that goal.
In the current structure, it’s impossible to get any kind of consensus to eliminate government, because the government itself would never allow that option to be discussed, let alone voted on. There is no “eliminate this office” option on a ballot.
So, I work in my own way to make myself free and get out of the system. I rent to avoid property tax, and refuse to file U.S. income taxes. I question authority. I don’t vote, and am vocal about why I don’t.
Perhaps the best way to describe it is the way Harry Browne did in “How I found freedom in an unfree world”. You can’t change the world and convince the masses of anything….that’s scary in itself. However, one-by-one, hopefully we can show how government is nothing but “a gang of thieves, writ large” and it will have its day down the road.
This is already happening.
LOL, call it over reliance on the dictionary if you want, but words mean things, and my calling your idea utopian wasn’t an “ad hominem […] slur” but rather, it seems, the truth. Unless, in your dictionary-less world, “ad hominem” doesn’t mean to attack someone’s character rather than the content of his or her argument, which I don’t think I was doing.
But just as you needn’t convince anyone of anything, I needn’t convince you that your ideas will never come to fruition. We’ll both live our lives as we please, and perhaps one day when all the governments are gone I’ll realize you were right after all.