First, there is no Federal Property tax now, nor should there be. Property Taxes are State, County, or local. Measure 2 in North Dakota in June would eliminate taxes on real estate at any level. Consider that we are the second largest oil producer in the US, and that the state gets a cut of every barrel of oil and every cubic foot of gas produced and that we have a 6 billion dollar surplus in the State coffers, we don't need a property tax. We have enough to run the state for six years now without collecting another dime, and we have more than 30 other major sources of revenue for the State.
As it stands, the serfs pay land rent to the government or get their holdings confiscated, buildings and all--because the buildings are on the land.
Kindly tell me just what the difference is.
Free men own their land, owing no one.
Some own more land than others. Some spend their money on farmland, others put it in the stock market, still others buy the latest fashions, but all have the option of buying land.
Some have more beanie babies than others, should we tax those too? Am I hearing 'acre envy' here?
You say you won't tax structures, so the owner of a 50 story office tower won't pay any more than the guy in a one bedroom shack with the same acreage?
Either you haven't thought this through, or worse, you have.
By the way, the land doesn't just sit there--without a long term plan, it won't yield anything but expense for the owner, although wildlife may do pretty well. Timber harvests (and replanting), crop production and rotation, even knowing which portions of the land are most suitable for what are things seldom learned within a couple of years. Some of the best stewards of land have passed it down through fifteen or more generations. Relatives of mine are on land which has been in the family since the mid 1600s and that is still productive land, except where the government won't allow the harvest of timber, timber planted by an ancestor 180 years ago. For the last 350+ years they have been paying taxes on that land. Enough.
My wife's people were given official deeds to the land they had owned far, far longer. Often the fellow who delivered the official deeds was accompanied by the fellow who served them notice of lien for back taxes (same wagon), and being without government issue cash, lost ten million acres of land, all nice and 'legal', but morally obscene.
Land taxes were used to strip southern farmers of their land (bought up by Carpetbaggers) after the Civil War. It is a time honored way to take land away from the owners, all nice and legal.
But from the rest of your spew, I suppose you'd think it's someone else's turn.
The left could buy up all the private property and then make it off-limits to everyone, farmers, hunters, what have you.
Google "Nature Conservancy". They do. What's worse, is those selfsame special interest groups lobby or sue to have policies implemented to make it impossible for the owners to pay their property taxes and force the sale at bargain prices. The Government also (and here's the favorite) takes land from private owners and makes 'wilderness areas' and 'wildlands', and Parks and National Monuments and establishes buffer areas which limit the uses private owners can put their land to--all the while private owners are paying taxes on the land.
Everyone should pay the same rate per acre.
So, if I own a gold vein, that should be paying the same rate per acre as West Texas scrubland? An Acre of Manhattan is worth the same as an acre north of Wamsutter, Wyoming? B.S.
Sean Penn and his pals would own half of Wyoming and make it off-limits.
The Federal Government does, and has, for everyone but a few tourists.
BUT you would open the door to the Federal Government (again) taking (more) land from those who have paid for it, with the same old tired excuse, so it could be 'more productive' (than the Indians, than the flyover country people, still the same forked tongue), even though the uses the owners can put their land to are often proscribed by the selfsame government you would have tax the land.
You miss who the threat is, here. Government is not the solution, it is the problem.
I'm in total disagreement with this system of taxing the hell out of a successful business so that others can go scot-free. Everyone should have skin in the game. The rest of the country is paying higher gas prices so that some can have a free ride.
Some have more beanie babies than others, should we tax those too? Am I hearing 'acre envy' here?
One of the main purposes of the government is to guard the land against foreign invasion. Land owners should not have a free ride.
You say you won't tax structures, so the owner of a 50 story office tower won't pay any more than the guy in a one bedroom shack with the same acreage?
True. The government is spending less to protect 1 acre than a million acres.
Either you haven't thought this through, or worse, you have.
I most definitely have, down to great detail. Our system is on the verge of failure. When we rebuild we will have to institute changes to avoid another failure. We are failing due to debt, and people voting themselves a free ride. Land reform and voting reform will go a long way in building a more perfect system after the failure. People need to be able to not go into so much debt to own land and build their lives. We need a self-adjusting system and concrete numbers to keep the government in check.
By the way, the land doesn't just sit there--without a long term plan, it won't yield anything but expense for the owner, although wildlife may do pretty well. Timber harvests (and replanting), crop production and rotation, even knowing which portions of the land are most suitable for what are things seldom learned within a couple of years. Some of the best stewards of land have passed it down through fifteen or more generations. Relatives of mine are on land which has been in the family since the mid 1600s and that is still productive land, except where the government won't allow the harvest of timber, timber planted by an ancestor 180 years ago. For the last 350+ years they have been paying taxes on that land. Enough.
Yes, that is the problem...everyone wanting a free ride.
So, if I own a gold vein, that should be paying the same rate per acre as West Texas scrubland? An Acre of Manhattan is worth the same as an acre north of Wamsutter, Wyoming? B.S.
If you don't want it, don't own it. Let someone else pay the taxes.
BUT you would open the door to the Federal Government (again) taking (more) land from those who have paid for it, with the same old tired excuse, so it could be 'more productive' (than the Indians, than the flyover country people, still the same forked tongue), even though the uses the owners can put their land to are often proscribed by the selfsame government you would have tax the land.
Like I said, I would constitutionally limit the government to 1/12 of the land. 11/12 would be private.
You miss who the threat is, here. Government is not the solution, it is the problem.
Since anarchy is not a solution, then we need reform. Land reform would be a big start. Stopping people from voting themselves a free ride would be another good step.