Middle-class woes? A letter to Lou Dobbs

Unfortunately The New Yorker forbids even excerpts so I couldn't post their profile of Dobbs wherein they describe his lunching at Four Seasons, sitting at his usual table, ordering the $45 sole, etc.

Another fraud.

"Nevertheless, your quaint idea that only "debt-free" assets are actually "owned" IS amusing.

Goofy, but amusing. "

Ouch....You wound me with your barbs....but, your definitions notwithstanding, you don't own it if you haven't yet paid for it, have to pay taxes on it to keep it, and don't have full sovereignty over it. Responsibility or liability for whatever it is you think you own, however, can be laid fully upon you by the same people who bring your definitions to the table. Ownership nowadays is nothing more than a public umbilical octopus surgically implanted into your wallet.

Thanks for the ping.

Great article, not that it's going to change anyone's mind; especially with people here being so in love with idea of America's collapse. Maybe it's not a denial of reality but a distortion of it. Remember, these are the same people that complain if:

--capital flows from foreign companies into American ones (they're buying us out!!!)

--it goes back (American traitors are sending US dollars overseas!!!)

--it balances out (America no longer competes in the international market!!!!)

Amazing how these idiots can switch back forth from crying about any of those three choices --for them it's always bad for America.

Hey expat, it's good to see you back. There was a great op-ed in the WSJ today from Brian Wesbury.

This explains why our trade deficit with China is not a significant problem. The dollars sent across the Pacific rebound as investment or spending on goods and services, such as the recent $3- to $4-billion contract with Westinghouse Electric Co. to build nuclear-power plants in China. While many fear that China might stop investing in the U.S., or sell its current investment holdings, this is misplaced worry. If China traded its dollars for euros, then whoever stood on the other side of that transaction would hold those dollars -- facing the same choices of buying from, or investing in, America. Foreign investment reflects the strength of the U.S. as a safe and sound economy."

He's another one who gets it.

Amazing how these idiots can switch back forth from crying about any of those three choices --for them it's always bad for America.

The best justice is to continue getting wealthy from this booming economy while they stand on the sideline wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth.

From the Beltway Boys' last show:

KONDRACKE: Down. "Blowhard of the Year" award goes to CNN's Lou Dobbs. Now this is a guy who also could qualify for "Turncoat of the Year".

BARNES: Yes.

KONDRACKE: .when he used to be a cheerleader for capitalism and for corporate America. Now he is a - a - a demagogue, it - it amounts for populists and - and protectionists and - and xenophobes. And he doesn't have any answers.

BARNES: And he's wrong. You know, the fact is, the rolling up our borders and pulling out of the globalized economy is a way to achieve one thing: a lower standard of living.

KONDRACKE: Yes. Poverty. Yes, exactly. Absolutely.

BARNES: A low - you know.

So no one owning a home is gaining wealth by building equity? TOTAL HOGWASH!

2007 is going to bring home a lesson on the difference between owning your home and owning a very large mortgage obligation.

"So no one owning a home is gaining wealth by building equity? TOTAL HOGWASH!"

Equity is the part of your lease from the government that you can sell. You don't own it if you still have to pay someone for it. The government owns your home. The bank bought the right to make money from you until you pay off the loan. Then you only owe rent to the government. Once the bank is out of the way you can sell your right to live there if you want. But you don't own it, or your wouldn't have to keep paying the government for it.

07 could be the year.Personal debt is at an all time high,National debt isn't evn discussed much anymore and in spite of how great this huge trade imbalance is supposed to be I think it's bs spin myself.The unemplyment rate while better then other times could change in a heartbeat now that Democraps are running the show again !!!

You MIGHT have a point, if "seller-financing" was the only form of financing available to a buyer. However, in most modern (i.e.: "non-quaint") transactions, the Seller is paid the full sales price when the transaction closes, so, after the closing, the seller is clearly NOT the owner. So....who is, then?

Let's see if we can learn that using your proposition that a person does not OWN an asset, if any future payment associated with that asset is due to a third party (said third party being the REAL "owner" of the asset, until the payment is made).

By that "definition",

(1) Mr. Lee "owns" the shirts I take to the laundry (cleaning fees payable)

(2) The town "owns" my debt-free beach house (RE Taxes payable)

(3) The IRS "owns" my securities (capital gains taxes payable)

(4) Merrill Lynch "owns" my securities (monthly service fees payable)

(5) The Depositary Trust and Clearing Corporation "owns" my securities (custodial fees payable)

(6) My children "own" my securities (inheritance payable)

(7) My alma mater "owns" my securities (planned giving/death bequest)

(8) Zachy's "owns" the the case of Dolce Far Niente I bought there last Saturday (my check hasn't cleared yet) and

(9) Le Bernadin still "owns" the delicious lunch I ate there yesterday (I won't pay my AMEX bill for at least two weeks).

It should be obvious that these examples of "ownership" are ridiculous. It follows that your unique definition of "ownership" is also ridiculous. When you said:

"...Ownership nowadays is nothing more than a public umbilical octopus surgically implanted into your wallet..."

I understood you to mean:

"...NOBODY ever REALLY owns ANYTHING!!! Really!! EVER!!! REALLY!!!!..."

This is not to say that your definition might not appeal to some members of our current flock of preening Pharisees.

But let's not replace the ancient, common-sense based, LEGAL definition of ownership (which IMHO has served us very well in the real world) with a new half-baked quasi-religious definition, just on your say-so.

OK?

Ok, let's take your points and see what you are saying.

Items 1, 4, 5 are payment for services rendered, which has nothing to do with ownership.

Items 6 and 7 indicate what you will do with funds you have legal title to and, indicates ownership only if they are not taxed just because you have them.

Items 2 and 3 are what indicate that you don't own your assets. The government can increase required payments on a whim and destroy your ability to control those assets if you refuse to pay. They are not yours. They are the government's assets and the government decides how much you will pay to call them yours.

Item 8 is a truly your ownership providing you entered honestly into the deal and your check clears.

Item 9 is just silly.

I know you understood what I mean, and I know that we debate as friendly protagonists. But the whole point to this discussion is that we give government permission to rape us by not standing up for our rights to ownership. Anything that I have bought, paid for, traded for or made, that is not taxed just because I have it, and with which I may exercises free will in it's utility or disposition is something I own. Otherwise, not. A home does not fit this description unless there are no taxes on it and it is fully paid for. We are not living in a free country if ownership can be taxed.

Re: the Grandfather Report, the link mentioned in Post #8:
Most interesting. I sympathize with the writer, but about his suggestion to drop government COLA's:

They'll pry my yearly COLA out of my cold, dead hands.

I'm grateful that my federal retirement check includes a 3.3 percent COLA increase for 2007. That's better than what we got last year (don't remember the figure exactly, but any increase is welcomed).

Work hard, little worker bees who are still in the work force, because you're paying my retirement check, which I deserve after going thru the hell of federal employment. Work hard, youth of America. Work, work, work.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think every honest student of economics would agree that "less taxation" is to be preferred to "more taxation" -- until the point is reached where our social contract begins to break down.

Since I am not aware of any post-"hunter-gatherer" society where taxes are not or were not imposed, I conclude that taxes are a necessary evil associated with civilization itself.

==> If you disagree with that conclusion, I'd appreciate it if you would provide an example of a real world society where taxes are/were not imposed. For this purpose, I'd say that any "utopian" society, which has not succeeded in the real world, has nothing to "teach" us in this regard.

In reponse to your claim of "tax-rape", please note that, in return for the real estate taxes I pay to my town, I receive:

(1) the services of policemen
(2) the services of firemen
(3) the services of schoolteachers
(4) the benefits of a working waste-treatment system
(5) roads and sidewalks in good repair
(6) several beautiful, well-maintained public parks
(7) access to several well-supplied, modern libraries
(8) enjoyment of several "free" spectacles each year, such as outdoor concerts and fireworks on Independence Day
(9) assurance that any building I may buy is well-constructed
(10) relief from many complex administrative duties, like:
(a) buying the "best" school textbooks
(b) preventing conversion of adjacent properties into smelly pig-farms or other nuisances
(c) compliance with federal- or state-mandated programs such as "leaf pick-up" and "re-cycling".

And please understand that my real estate taxes are not imposed on me by a rapacious, hereditary nobleman or by a far-away, myopic bureaucrat.

Instead, my taxes are imposed by the majority rule of a group of my neighbors at an annual, open public meeting. I, and every other adult citizen of my town, elect these representatives every two years by means of a secret ballot. These elections allow us (through those neighbors) to control the spending ITEMS that determine just how high our taxes must be in the aggregate.

==> If your problem with taxes is a really a problem with the concept of "majority-rule", I don't know what to say.

Moreover, if I feel my taxes are too high relative to taxes paid on comparable properties, I have the right to appeal my tax assessment and, if I am not satisfied through that appeal process, I have the right to sue my town in order to realize a "just" tax. So I am not a "tax-serf", subject to highly arbitrary power, although I gather that's what you think all of us homeowners are.

As you may know, local real estate taxes pre-date our Constitution, so I think there is no value to be earned by exclaiming that real-estate taxes are somehow "un-Constitutional" or that the imposition of real estate taxes has destroyed a freedom that we "once had".

To my knowledge, the only class of ASSET (as differentiated from CONSUMABLES) that is legally not subject to tax, is "municipal bonds", chosen to be exempt from state tax as well as federal tax. IIRC, John Kerry and his wife receive about $5MM in tax-free income from such bonds each year.

==> OTOH, if you aware of any other class of capital asset, which is not taxed, I'd be interested to hear of it.

Thanks for that good, well thought out presentation.

First, let me (with pain) agree that taxes are necessary, and that the benefits of being taxed are real and tangible. However, the method of taxation is wrong. The current form in the way of property taxes allow bureaucrats the power to raise them arbitrarily based upon a value that they choose to apply to your property. Sure, I can appeal, or sue, if I think my property tax is unjust, just like anyone. I may win and I may lose. However, why am I put in a position where I must spend my time and money defending my possessions and income from the arbitrary whims government bureaucrats?

I have no problem with taxes on the goods and services that I consume. The amount of taxes on such items would determine the limits of my consumption, to be sure, and there would be no end to griping, to be sure. But such taxes can only go so high before they produce negative results in the way of income to the taxer. A balance must be achieved. It also makes the tax more visible and involves everyone.

I think that property tax should be taken care of in the way of a sales tax applied to the purchase price of the property, as well as general consumption. This does not affect the new home owner any more than property tax does now. The taxer gets the money at the time of purchase and the payer either pays it off immediately or it is merged into the loan payment. But if the home is paid off, there are no additional taxes applied on the property. Property changes hands quite regularly, so the funds would always be coming in. If this is part of a general consumption tax then the burden can be spread across all consumption, generally.

I realize that there are problems with any form of taxation, but I think that when taxes are applied in a way that people must defend themselves individually from government whims, people are not free. Government should have to beg and plead and justify their increases to a community in which every individual will feel the pinch directly from the increase, in the same way, if granted. Taxes on transactions do this very well.

That's my complaint. And that is the direction I favor for the solution.

The free market works best when the buyer and the seller of a product have a good understanding of exactly what the product is and a good understanding of the value of the currency offered in exchange for that product.

With all due respect, your idea of using a one-time tax charged on a real estate purchase to pay for all the future services to be provided by the local government for the benefit of that buyer does NOT do that. Homebuyer "A" might remain in his new house for two years, while homebuyer "B" might remain in his identical new house for twenty-two years. With that uncertainty, do you think our bureaucrats may tend to "over-estimate" the one-time tax that is due on the purchases of those new homes? Hmmmm...

Moreover, using this example, it does not seem "fair" to me for Mr. "A" to pay the same tax as Mr. "B" -- since Mr. "B" will receive 11 times the locally-provided services and benefits as Mr. "A". In effect, the result of the one-time real estate tax is an income transfer from Mr. "A" to Mr. "B". IIRC, conservatives usually object to such government-mandated income transfers.

"Fairness" aside, I just don't see how over-taxing the most mobile Americans to subsidize the most sedentary Americans can improve our economy. Mobility is essential to maximize economic efficiency, is it not?

A further point is that the one-time real estate tax you propose will, of necessity, be quite large. I have calculated that the one-time tax payment needed to "defease" the annual cost of locally-provided services, if we assume:

(1) that that cost of services starts at $10,000 per year
(2) that that cost increases at a rate of 8% per year
(3) that the house is resold in the 20th year
(4) that the one-time tax payment will be invested to yield 5% annually,

is $254,833. IMHO, a $254,833 one-time real estate tax would be a significant deal-breaker for most prospective homebuyers.

A final drawback is that, having paid the one-time tax, some homebuyers will be indifferent to how aggressively the bureaucrats might choose to increase their rate of "public" spending, thereafter.

So I really think that a "pay-as-you-go" real estate tax is preferable to a one-time real estate tax paid at closing, due to its transparency, fairness, economic feasibility and the potential for more (some?) tax-payer "control" over the growth of spending by our local governments.

I hope I have made my postion clear.

The one time property sales tax, as I envision it, is part of the general sales tax applied to everyone. It doesn't need to be so high as you suggest because the burden is spread across the entire spectrum. My idea merges property tax with all other local taxes and makes it payable by everyone at the time of transactions for goods and services. Your water bill goes up, your heating bill goes up, and all other bills go up, but the contribution now taken from property tax goes down and the government can't come and put liens or make other threats, nor reappraise your property at their whims. The burden is painful and shared by everyone, as a tax should be. That's the only way to keep government in a reasonably responsible mode. It is the only way to keep people involved, and it is the only fair way.

Look, people who lease apartments pay property tax indirectly. As do customers in stores, etc. The problem is the indirectly. The apartment owner must pay the tax to the government, so the government has a single point of contact. That's nice for the government, but it sucks for the apartment owner. The owner can say to the renter that his prices are going up because of high property taxes, but the renter can just move and the owner is still stuck with the tax. The owner is stuck with an unfair accountability exactly because he is less easily mobile. In my version, no sale, no tax. The government is the party that has to be more reasonable. If property tax is merged into a more general sales tax, then everyone pays it as they go, including transients, who use up a lot of the goods and services you mention at the expense of the locals. The government takes it's money as the transactions are made and can't arbitrarily raise it on one property because he painted it or because the guy next door sold for more. What you have now is the sedentary population being saddled for the mobile population's whims. Exactly the opposite of what you complained about. Why should real estate speculators and those passing through get a free ride buying and selling homes and raising the taxes of those who actually live in an area long term?

I'll admit that the dynamics change, but I suggest that the change is good and necessary. Government should not and never be in the "tax appraisal" business. The tax should be fixed and spread across spectrum. It should also be based on transactions, not ownership or possession. Otherwise, we are not free.

==>Please see the comments I have added to your presentation:

The one time property sales tax, as I envision it, is part of the general sales tax applied to everyone...
==>Does this mean that my local town government will NOW be able to impose its own sales tax? Isn't every "new" tax a BAD idea? I do know that some jurisdictions, like NYC, have imposed a "local" sales tax.

It doesn't need to be so high as you suggest...
==> Please "Do the math", as I did. You could just take the expense budget of your town from last year and divide it by the number of houses sold in your town last year to get the "average" one-time tax that would have been needed to fund those expenses. If you divide that "average" one-time tax by the average selling price you will calculate an eye-popping percentage as the "rate" of the one-time tax.

...because the burden is spread across the entire spectrum.
==> If I understand your idea correctly, the tax burden is NOT spread to all property owners, but is restricted to only those property owners who sell their real estate.

My idea merges property tax with all other local taxes and makes it payable by everyone at the time of transactions for goods and services. Your water bill goes up, your heating bill goes up, and all other bills go up, but the contribution now taken from property tax goes down and the government can't come and put liens or make other threats, nor reappraise your property at their whims.
==> I assume that the one-time tax will be paid from the proceeds of the sale of a home at the closing of that sale. If the one-time tax is not paid, then the closing cannot occur. Using my example, this would create a problem for the seller if the sales price is not more than $254,833 above whatever mortgage debt is due.

The burden is painful and shared by everyone,...
==> Sounds good, but isn't your idea to collect the one-time tax from just those people who sell their houses, when they sell? A tax from "everyone" is what we have now, isn't it?

...as a tax should be. That's the only way to keep government in a reasonably responsible mode.
==> Some people think the "lead-bullet term limit" would be more effective.

It is the only way to keep people involved, and it is the only fair way.

Look, people who lease apartments pay property tax indirectly. As do customers in stores, etc. The problem is the indirectly. The apartment owner must pay the tax to the government, so the government has a single point of contact. That's nice for the government, but it sucks for the apartment owner. The owner can say to the renter that his prices are going up because of high property taxes, but the renter can just move and the owner is still stuck with the tax. The owner is stuck with an unfair accountability exactly because he is less easily mobile.
==> In the short run. In the long run, apartment owners cease investing in over-taxed apartments, which then decay into slums, which create additional social costs.

In my version, no sale, no tax. The government is the party that has to be more reasonable.
==> LOL
==> Most states charge a "use tax" on equipment rentals as a proxy for the sales tax they do not collect from the "sale" of the equipment to the lessee. I have no doubt that taxing jurisdictions would LOVE to charge a "use tax" on real estate rentals, if they thought they could get away with it.

If property tax is merged into a more general sales tax, then everyone pays it as they go, including transients, who use up a lot of the goods and services you mention at the expense of the locals. The government takes it's money as the transactions are made and can't arbitrarily raise it on one property because he painted it or because the guy next door sold for more. What you have now is the sedentary population being saddled for the mobile population's whims. Exactly the opposite of what you complained about. Why should real estate speculators and those passing through get a free ride buying and selling homes and raising the taxes of those who actually live in an area long term?
==> IIRC, the "value-added-tax" imposed on most Europeans is, objectively, a disaster for those poor tax-payers. Most citizens have no legal way to reduce the taxes they pay. Moreover, they cannot "vote with their feet" to escape such taxes.

I'll admit that the dynamics change, but I suggest that the change is good and necessary. Government should not and never be in the "tax appraisal" business.
==> I agree that wily bureaucrats have found ways to abuse the "appraisal" process to increase tax revenues. But that is a topic for another day.

The tax should be fixed and spread across spectrum. It should also be based on transactions, not ownership or possession.
==> IMHO, the real problem is that government spending is too high and very wasteful. Tinkering with the mechanisms of collecting taxes will not change that. I think that annual property taxes give the citizens a chance (an a motive) to rein in their local bureaucrats. You may disagree.

Otherwise, we are not free.
==> By that definition, since property taxes precede Hammurabi, we have never been free.

==>Please see the comments I have added to your presentation:

The one time property sales tax, as I envision it, is part of the general sales tax applied to everyone...
==>Does this mean that my local town government will NOW be able to impose its own sales tax? Isn't every "new" tax a BAD idea? I do know that some jurisdictions, like NYC, have imposed a "local" sales tax. ==>All taxes are bad on the taxed. However, like cod liver oil, sometimes they are necessary, as you have already pointed out. Sales tax affects the entire population directly. Property tax doesn't. Sales tax isn't assessed on an individual basis, as is property tax, and the government gets the blame directly when it is too high. Sales tax is not hidden.

It doesn't need to be so high as you suggest...
==> Please "Do the math", as I did. You could just take the expense budget of your town from last year and divide it by the number of houses sold in your town last year to get the "average" one-time tax that would have been needed to fund those expenses. If you divide that "average" one-time tax by the average selling price you will calculate an eye-popping percentage as the "rate" of the one-time tax. ==>The tax is “one time” on every sale of a property. Not simply “one time”. It is also applied to every good and service bought by the owner, every rent payment of the renter, every burger, etc. Secondly, if the tax must then still be so high as to be punitive, perhaps (as we already know) the city’s budget encompasses a whole lot more in it than the city ought to be doing (hint: free education and services for illegals, for one). Government is bloated. It must be held accountable. With property tax it is not. Too many people can skate through in apathy.

...because the burden is spread across the entire spectrum.
==> If I understand your idea correctly, the tax burden is NOT spread to all property owners, but is restricted to only those property owners who sell their real estate. ==>see the above note.

My idea merges property tax with all other local taxes and makes it payable by everyone at the time of transactions for goods and services. Your water bill goes up, your heating bill goes up, and all other bills go up, but the contribution now taken from property tax goes down and the government can't come and put liens or make other threats, nor reappraise your property at their whims.
==> I assume that the one-time tax will be paid from the proceeds of the sale of a home at the closing of that sale. If the one-time tax is not paid, then the closing cannot occur. Using my example, this would create a problem for the seller if the sales price is not more than $254,833 above whatever mortgage debt is due.==> as with all sales tax, the buyer pays, not the seller. Today’s buyers are quite happy with the life long debt of a loan, anyway. Debt is trendy in America. Part of the loan goes to the sales tax (paid in full by the bank) and the loan is paid off by the new owner in his monthly payments, just as is common now. In today’s IRS rules and regulations, the tax is directly deductible, from the federal tax, and the interest is indirectly deductible. It may throw a kink in real estate speculation, but that’d be a good thing.

The burden is painful and shared by everyone,...
==> Sounds good, but isn't your idea to collect the one-time tax from just those people who sell their houses, when they sell? A tax from "everyone" is what we have now, isn't it? ==> see above.

...as a tax should be. That's the only way to keep government in a reasonably responsible mode.
==> Some people think the "lead-bullet term limit" would be more effective. ==>no comment.

It is the only way to keep people involved, and it is the only fair way.

Look, people who lease apartments pay property tax indirectly. As do customers in stores, etc. The problem is the indirectly. The apartment owner must pay the tax to the government, so the government has a single point of contact. That's nice for the government, but it sucks for the apartment owner. The owner can say to the renter that his prices are going up because of high property taxes, but the renter can just move and the owner is still stuck with the tax. The owner is stuck with an unfair accountability exactly because he is less easily mobile.
==> In the short run. In the long run, apartment owners cease investing in over-taxed apartments, which then decay into slums, which create additional social costs. ==>More reason to not over tax., eh? And taxation doesn't preclude acceptable standards. Slums develop when government doesn't do it’s job, and they develop in all cities. Slums are a different subject.

In my version, no sale, no tax. The government is the party that has to be more reasonable.
==> LOL ==>again, the people have to become aware, and a sales tax makes them aware. Maybe they move, maybe they revolt, but thee city gets less if it taxes more with a sales tax. That is a great thing.

==> Most states charge a "use tax" on equipment rentals as a proxy for the sales tax they do not collect from the "sale" of the equipment to the lessee. I have no doubt that taxing jurisdictions would LOVE to charge a "use tax" on real estate rentals, if they thought they could get away with it. ==>fine. Just so it’s a direct tax on the transaction and that taxes on ownership and mere possession go away.

If property tax is merged into a more general sales tax, then everyone pays it as they go, including transients, who use up a lot of the goods and services you mention at the expense of the locals. The government takes it's money as the transactions are made and can't arbitrarily raise it on one property because he painted it or because the guy next door sold for more. What you have now is the sedentary population being saddled for the mobile population's whims. Exactly the opposite of what you complained about. Why should real estate speculators and those passing through get a free ride buying and selling homes and raising the taxes of those who actually live in an area long term?
==> IIRC, the "value-added-tax" imposed on most Europeans is, objectively, a disaster for those poor tax-payers. Most citizens have no legal way to reduce the taxes they pay. Moreover, they cannot "vote with their feet" to escape such taxes. ==> I've spent a lot of time in Europe and the the VAT sucks. Also note that the VAT is only the tip of the tax iceberg over there. But here I defer to the HR25 concept, the FairTax, where the tax, my tax, is applied to the end product retail sale only. At any rate, the tax must be fully identified so that the payer can see the entire tax burden in the price paid. Not, as in the VAT, only the tax on the transaction last made. The tax must be equally applied and completely visible to the payer.

I'll admit that the dynamics change, but I suggest that the change is good and necessary. Government should not and never be in the "tax appraisal" business.
==> I agree that wily bureaucrats have found ways to abuse the "appraisal" process to increase tax revenues. But that is a topic for another day. ==>Not really. This is predation directly caused by taxes that can be arbitrarily applied based upon a bureaucrat’s fancy or desired funding. This is the result of taxes like property tax. Since both of us will agree (I hope) that government is inherently corrupt, any time they have power they will use it. A general sales tax is not nearly as corrupting as a targeted property tax.

The tax should be fixed and spread across spectrum. It should also be based on transactions, not ownership or possession.
==> IMHO, the real problem is that government spending is too high and very wasteful. ==>100 percent agreement. Tax reform addresses this.

Tinkering with the mechanisms of collecting taxes will not change that. I think that annual property taxes give the citizens a chance (an a motive) to rein in their local bureaucrats. You may disagree. ==>I do. Since we both agree that taxation is a requirement in order to fund necessary government, the idea is to define and stick to “necessary” government. Since government can’t function without funds, the harder it is to extract the funds the harder it is for government to expand. The easier it is for government to expand, the less free the governed. The framers knew this. Why have we forgotten it?

Otherwise, we are not free.
==> By that definition, since property taxes precede Hammurabi, we have never been free.==>Perhaps, but we have been much more free.