[Section taken from the book "The Sharp Knife of Forced Simplicity, Volume 1: The Numinous Rebellion"]
Land Rental
Property taxes and Eminent Domain effectively rule out any possibility of true land ownership. If someone cannot come up with a certain amount of money every year, the government €œreclaims€ that person’s land and sells it to someone else. Even if the person can pay, should the government decide it can use the land better, it can up and take it after paying €œfair market price.€
Owning something that you’ve paid for means you no longer have to pay for it. I own my car, and even if I didn’t pay for insurance I can still own my car, I just can’t drive it. Paying off the mortgage for my house means I don’t have to pay for my house… but I still have to pay property tax.
Compulsory payment without end for the privilege of use is not called ownership, it is called rental. Without the ability for a man to actually own his land, he is shackled to the system. Theoretically, a man could buy enough land to support himself, and then renounce citizenship, living separate from the nation in his own autonomous kingdom. So long as he is forced to pay taxes on this one thing, however, he can never be free.
If freedom is really that important to Americans, then there must be a way to gather local taxes for the benefit of the community without putting shackles on anyone who wishes to opt out.
[Ron Khare is a local author, blogger and newbie gardener. You learn more about his book at ForcedSimplicity.com]
So, this means that your freedom will allow you to "opt out" of the the services that those property taxes support. To list a few: public schools, fire and police protection, roads, health programs, parks, city streets, sewer systems, garbage disposal, public libraries, and many other local services, etc.
There's a parallel here to our founding fathers . . . they felt similarly about "renting" from Great Britain, however once free from those shackles, they need to implement a tax/rent policy that would pay for all the "services" (what Saffi is pointing out) that serve the common good.
Before I go further, the question I have is do you have to pay property taxes on land in unincorporated areas? In other words are there places you can buy land and not pay tax on that land?
Yup.
Or, a better way would be to find a way to tax people without taking away their land – if you have no income, you should still be able to grow your food and live your way. By taking away land you rob people of the ability to provide for themselves without giving them another option. Basically it means you are required to have money to live… but with true land ownership, you could live your whole life without money.
Nowhere around here, that's for certain. There are cases where, for instance, if land ownership dates back to before Independence (before the USA) then it's not taxed… I think it also varies by state and possibly county. But all the land around here is farmland (developed) and thereby taxed.
I understand what you are saying. However (elderly folks or disabled persons aside), citizenship – being a member of a larger society – means that we do have a relationship, and therefore, responsibility to one another. Making enough money to pay your property taxes each year, should not be too burdensome to the type of lifestyle you describe.
If you don't want to earn enough money to pay taxes and your house is burning, as a society, we cannot let your house burn. In this case, it presents a danger to the citizens who do pay taxes. And those who do pay taxes must support the fire department that will extinguish your fire.
This is probably a tired example, but, personally, I don't see how any person can isolate themselves to such a degree where they never touch the aspects of our society that are supported by property tax dollars.
I agree – a large aspect of the tax system is acceptance of a social contract. I believe in the existence/requirement of a social contract, even though I have issues with large portions of tax law.
Again – if you can make that tax income from anything other than land ownership, I'm fine with it. My point is that taxation implies ownership, and therefore no one can actually *own* their land. That's the problem: The US government owns every square inch of land. The best you can do is rent from them, and they can take it back any time they please, for any reason they want.
I don't have to pay income tax if I make no income – both state and federal. How could I? So if I have a plot of land, no money, and barely get by from growing my own food, why should the government have the right to take that from me, and render me homeless (where I have even less chance to survive)?
Now, I also believe that participation in society should be optional, not required – like a club, you pay membership fees and get the benefits. If you don't, no one cares. A lot of people would want to be a part of the club, but it being optional leaves the door open to those who wish to live a different lifestyle. But that's a whole other post.