Regarding the so-called “renting” of assets you legally own:
I may be wrong, but it seems that you think that the benefits to local homeowners provided by (for example) local Fire Departments and local Police Departments should be provided to those homeowners for FREE.
Why?
Why shouldn’t the local beneficiaries of government spending, which was approved by local voters, pay the cost of that spending through local taxes?
The phrase “I’d prefer not to.”, strikes me as simple selfishness. Many people want “free stuff”. Why should they get it?
“benefits to local homeowners provided by (for example) local Fire Departments”
In my area, I can choose to pay the local volunteer fire company $85/year in dues.
If I refuse and they show up on a call, Florida statutory law provides that I must pay them $800(as of a few years back).
> The phrase “I’d prefer not to.”, strikes me as simple selfishness. Many people want “free stuff”. Why should they get it? <
I’m a bit confused by your post, to the poInt that I wonder if you read all of my post #2. Or maybe you are responding to the wrong post. At the end of my post I said: “I’d much rather see property taxes abolished, and replaced by some sort of sales tax.“
There is, of course, no free lunch. But property taxes have always struck me as being rather arbitrary. My house is worth $125,000 just because some assessor says so. I very much doubt if I could get that amount should I sell tomorrow.
And property taxes put a real burden on older folks on a fixed income. Better to have some sort of sales tax, as I noted earlier.