I appreciate your disagreement. You evidently have experience with the powers that be which treated you like a serf.

I for one do not let myself be treated that way. I don't buy into the propaganda which lets these politicians and bureaucrats gain the upper hand over me. However, I've run my own business for 28 years, and I know exactly what you are talking about.

If you buck the system, they'll try took take you down. However, I learned that what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. I've stuck to my believes and understandings all these years in making decisions for my business and my family, and I am not sorry for it. However, I can certainly accept that you see things differently.

Ingo, you have said nothing new, but thank you for trying.

It is not that I do not understand your position.

I simply disagree with it. I am not aware of anyplace you can buy property in the U.S. where you do not have to pay tribute to the powers that be. That makes you a serf.

I wish you'd let go of the propaganda swirling in your head for just a little while. Try to follow me here without prejudice getting in the way.

Whether its grandma, David Rockefeller, Mao Tse Tung or the King of Siam, none of them, but none of them can own land. Land simply cannot be "owned". I ask you to except this premise just for this explanation. Thanks

Back to grandma. She is subject to paying taxes, if she lives in an area where people decided to incorporate and to have a government to provide services for them. If this didn't suit grandma she shouldn't have moved there, or if it was incorporated after she moved there, she should not have stayed.

I hope you don't take the stand that, if the incorporation vote went against grandma's wishes, her neighbors should have just given up on the incorporation plan on grandma's account. Don't you think grandma should have said, ok I don't like my screwy neighbors who want to incorporate and pay taxes, I am out of here... .???

Yet, grandma stayed, didn't she... ??? So, grandma wants to have her cake and eat it too. But, when she stayed, she was as liable for the city taxes as were all her neighbors. The question was, how much should she pay and on what basis.

It seems just, and it is also a matter of law that there be equity in levying taxes. It means that those who benefit most from taxpayer money must be the ones to pay highest taxes.

Since the U.S. Constitution probits direct taxes on labor and wealth, the the only avenue left is to levy a tax is involving land. But a tax involving land based on what... ??? There is no criteria which makes any sense, except to consider the "value" of the land when calculating the amount of taxes to pay. Why... ???

The improvements made and the services provided by the city with the property tax does not benefit all property owners equally. There are some location which benefit more than others. Therefore, the law requires that an elected County Assessor provide a valuation for each property to cities in the county in order that they can calculate their tax bills and meet the equity tax requirement. Those who benefit most from taxpayer money experience greater value in their location than those who do not. The tax bills are therefore higher for properties with higher valuations, while it is lower for those who don't benefit from the taxes as much and have a lower location value.

If you have followed me so far, you should see that the "State" is not out to get grandma, or that there is some communist county official who has it in for grandma and values her property disproportionately to other valuations.

If grandma decided to move into the city, or she did not to move away when the rest of her neighbors voted to incorporate, then she elected to be there, and to share equitably in the payment of taxes.

If she found out that her neighbors wanted more and more government services and voted for city politicians to give it to them, grandma should have rallied opposition and gone to the public hearings. In the end though, grandma got her tax bill from the city which was based on the equity arrived through valuing her property along with all the other.

If grandma then found that she couldn't pay the tax bill, she should have explored relieve with the city. Many municipalities have laws that offer relieve in certain circumstances.

If she couldn't find relieve, her final option was to sell her fee simple title. Based on the size of her tax bill, the amount she would have gotten for the fee simple title should calculate out to be pretty high. (the amount is calculated by capitalizing the annual tax bill using the prime interest rate)

With the proceeds from the sale of her fee simple title, grandma could have move anywhere in the country where she could buy another fee simple title.

So, all along grandma had choices, several of choices, but she elected none of them. The one choice she did make is to threaten the Sheriff with a gun. It cost her her life. It's tragic, but was it avoidable... ??? You tell me... !!!

BTW, you do know that no grandma was ever shot for not paying her property taxes, right... ??? Just want to make sure you knew that.

Sorry Ingo,

I made a couple of errors, which is par for the course with me, it seems.

"vapurizes" should be "vapourizes" - the "o" seemed to vapourize for sme reason. Did you see that? It happened again!

"$400k" should be "$300k" (which was year 1 revenue) - slip of the keyboard.

Hi Ingo,

That's 'Agent' Weebley. I am an Agent Of Peace.

I guess I was too maybe too ethereal in my 5 sided NetZero explanation of double entry accounting and the example of taxes pulling the asset value down. You see, tax is entered as a liability on the books until paid and an expense as the double entry to balance it out . . .

[ Cr tax payable, Dr tax expense ]

. . . but when the liability vapurizes some cash in the bank in order for the taxes to be paid . . .

[ Cr cash in bank, Dr tax payable ]

. . . it depresses the net income (as well as negatively affecting cashflow) for no valid reason, which reflects negatively on the equity . . .

[ Dr current earnings by the tax amount ]

. . . which is the balance sheet 'result' of revenue minus expenses in current year.

Therefore, we must work harder to make up for that thieving 'tax' line item on the income statement, otherwise we lose equity. . . . or do you use cash basis accounting, rather than the accrual method?

This obvious lack of communication on my part has resulted in a debit to me, and a credit to you . . . that would be from your point of view, but I like the way it looks, so it will stay.

I could begin to speak about real estate, dead Grannies and guns . . . but that would be enabling you . . . but I never did mention dead Grannies and guns . . . not here, anyway.

By the way, I have taken 2 accounting courses, and have run a business for the last 14 years. In fact, I quadrupled our revenue with the help of my employee team and loyal customers in the first 4 years. $400k to $1.3 million p.a. Then the unions got involved, so I went micro again. But that is a load of BS. I am a librarian with a vivid imagination.

Man, I'm bored shiftless with this diversionary topic. I'm going over here . . .

Click to view link

. . . where you are talking about Real Bills again. Yummy.

Click to view link

Oh, I almost forgot . . .

To conclude, if you pay all your liabilities, then assets minus liabilities equals equity, which means assets minus zero equals equity. If your equity is lower, then your assets are lower. BUT . . .if you don't pay your tax liability, then you lose the asset under force of bailiff, the asset is sold at discount at auction, and you get the remaining crumbs from the receiver.

Try it, Ingo. Do you have any assets you would like to test it with? How about something worth $1000, where you have a liability of $1000 and you refuse to pay it. See what happens.

"Now, we all are sitting in a mess, and all you say is, "who me... ???" Yes, you and me and the rest of the electorate, we are to blame for the current state of affairs. To walk away and point the finger at terrible politicians and tyrannical government officials is a copout. The greatest corrupting influence on politicians comes from banks and real estate speculators. They work hand-in-hand to in the only way to make money without working or taking risks."

This is so far off base it's beyond wrong.

The only way to make money without working or taking risks is to get yourself a sinecure, a secure government job, insulated from any consequences of the damage you cause, living off money taken at the point of a gun, and having the prestige of respectability to boot.

The corrupting influence comes from the intellectual atmosphere that denies the concept of inalienable rights, coming up with mythologies to make people feel like government expenses are so necessary and important that they must be collected on a death threat, and anyone who disagrees DESERVES to be killed. It is their ability to take wealth by force that corrupts. That wealth is funneled to intellectuals who preach the absolute authority of the authorities.

And you blame this on us? The situation was in place and growing out of control by the time I was born.

I AM doing something about it. I am puncturing this perverted idea. I deny the legitimacy of any group of men to take anything from me by force.

I know why you don't like the Grandma story. It's because it makes you face the bare truth of what you advocate.

"So what are you complaining about... ??? You mean grandma was so dumb, she never knew that... ???

Why do you want everybody else to pay for someone's unwillingness to be informed and make decent decisions... .???"

Sure, there should be a death penalty for that ...

The State owns you.

"costs which needed to be covered by taxes"

Perhaps by user fees, voluntary contributions, insurance-type schemes, whatever. Not on land rents.

"that's when the Sheriff shot her."

Thank you for confirming my point. You believe she doesn't, and can not own her own home, and should be shot if she refuses to be put out.

"I give up. You apparently believe the state and coercion can "work", if just the right people and coercive laws are in place, oblivious to the fact that coercion equals servitude and an irresistible coercion to the coercers to enslave everyone else."

No, Bill...

I urge people to get involved. To learn how our form of government is supposed to work. You make the government out as something separate from us, as something corrupt with which we have nothing to do. This sort of attitude has let these "elected" officials, who have the propensity to be as corrupt as any of us, to grap and consolidate power at higher and higher levels of government.

Most of the electorate was too occupied with other things than worrying about political officials to whom they had given power over their lives.

Now, we all are sitting in a mess, and all you say is, "who me... ???" Yes, you and me and the rest of the electorate, we are to blame for the current state of affairs. To walk away and point the finger at terrible politicians and tyrannical government officials is a copout. The greatest corrupting influence on politicians comes from banks and real estate speculators. They work hand-in-hand to in the only way to make money without working or taking risks.

The "grandma stories" are part of the propaganda put out by the banks and real estate speculators, and they have only one purpose. It is to scare the hell out of the residential property owner, and to make him want to pay his "unreasonably high tax bills" (due to monetary inflation of central bank money) based on "unreasonably high valuations" (due to "home flipping" land speculation).

Yet, the truth is that "Grandma stories" are just such, STORIES. There has never been a "grandma" put through eviction and shot when she refused to leave. ITS A STORY, Bill... ...

You can go on to repeat it, but know that it is propaganda, pure and simple. I say it again, it is done for the purpose of getting the residential owner to pony up a huge amount of taxes to make improvements downtown.

The residential property owner earns his money for actual work performed. working. It is the dollars backed by actual productivity which he must use to pay his property taxes. It is that kind of dollar which is needed to pay for the improvements downtown and to pay for the salaries of the city bureaucracy.

If you cut off the flow of the dollar representing real productivity, improvements downtown, have to be paid with the capital of the downtown commercial property owners.

You don't see it, but you are being used by the banking and RE elite. Yet, you don't see it, and you keep on telling Granma stories. Search me... ...

On the other hand you call me statist, and you want to dispell my statist delusions. Bill, you got it all upside down. There is only one of us who is deluted, and it isn't me.

Wake up, man... I like you. You are better than repeating these stupid "Grandma stories".

"Not some state wonk... an elected county official."

You mean the ones who are not held accountable for broken political promises, nor their corrupt insider deals, nor their performance until the electorate falls for the fraudulent siren call of some other tax eater and throws them and their gold plated pension out on their butt?

I give up. You apparently believe the state and coercion can "work", if just the right people and coercive laws are in place, oblivious to the fact that coercion equals servitude and an irresistible coercion to the coercers to enslave everyone else.

A "little bit" of "necessary" tyranny is a seed that MUST germinate to the full tyranny tree. You, as the rest of us will see it come crashing down around our ears, suffer major collateral damage and, those who "believe", if only they were "master" can do a "better job" controlling the lives of others, despite the physical reality impossibility of "knowing" what choices must be made because you are not "walking in another man's shoes" and, can only cause harm by attempting to control the uncontrollable and know the unknowable:

Click to view link

I actually thought I was making progress in breaking down your statist delusions, but, stand corrected.

"... so grandma was not making "best use" of HER property in the opinion of some state wonk, and, if she did not sell and move to avoid being impoverished by tax penalties, she would be impoverished, be unable to pay taxes and, then shot when she refused to be evicted from HER own property?"

Not some state wonk... an elected county official. This county official follows association guidelines in valueing properties. Those valuation are public and can be appealed. You can find out any valuation by going to the County Assessor's office and look it up.

There are counties where property owners value their own properties and tax bills are based on those evaluations. On the whole, it works quite well. Unless some people get too cute and undervalue their property to the point where the county just acquires the fee simple title for the amount of the valuation.

Grandma had a fee simple title to her property. The property under law was always subject to entry by police power, subject to taxation (under a land value system to follow equity requirements), open to eminent domain proceedings and subject to recovery in escheat.

So what are you complaining about... ??? You mean grandma was so dumb, she never knew that... ???

Why do you want everybody else to pay for someone's unwillingness to be informed and make decent decisions... .???

The commercial RE speculators need useful idiots to tell grandma stories and to tuck on the heart strings of the average Joe. You are doing a good job as a UI, Bill...

How long will the stuff you put out be able to fool the people... ..???

"re-value all properties in relation to each other based on their "best use" value"

... so grandma was not making "best use" of HER property in the opinion of some state wonk, and, if she did not sell and move to avoid being impoverished by tax penalties, she would be impoverished, be unable to pay taxes and, then shot when she refused to be evicted from HER own property?

and, when I state that I have a better use than you for the 1K promised and earned, whose "values" are to trump? You seem to favor guns and are doing your best to avoid a freedom epiphany.

You don't like grandma analogies, I assume because it is too close to picking on the weak and helpless. OK, what if it is the most orney Hell's Angels biker, armed to the teeth you can imagine, but not haven committed any crimes. Is it better to exploit those we don't like or respect?

CORRECTION:

the sentence: "To meet the "equity requirement" in the collection of taxes, the County Assessor was required to periodically value and re-value all properties in relation to each other based on their use."

SHOULD READ: "To meet the "equity requirement" in the collection of taxes, the County Assessor was required to periodically value and re-value all properties in relation to each other based on their "best use" value.

I've heard the "grandma story" so often, it's making me sick.

However, with the way you tell it, there was never any need for grandma to pay taxes at all. As you describe the situation, grandma and her neighbors paid out of pocket for all the improvements, such as roads and sidewalks. I assume she and her neighbors relied on a volunteer fire department and a volunteer police force, as well as on an elected Justice of the Peace, who served pro bono. So, there were no costs which needed to be covered by taxes, and therefore grandma should never have had a tax bill to begin with.

It wouldn't have mattered, if the County Assessor had valued grandma's property at a Billion Dollars. Her tax bill would still be ZERO.

The problem is that you told the story wrong.

The correct "Grandma story" has grandma living on a piece of property in the downtown area. There, in the city the cost of government went up and up, and with it went up the taxes to pay for government.

To meet the "equity requirement" in the collection of taxes, the County Assessor was required to periodically value and re-value all properties in relation to each other based on their use. It was in this context that grandma's downtown property was valued upward.

Then, when her valuation multiplied by the mil rate increased her tax bill to the point where she could no longer pay it, that's when the Sheriff shot her.

The question is: "Did grandma have an alternative to avoid higher tax bills... ??? You tell me... !!!

Enough of the "grandma stories" though, PLEASE... ... ... ... .

Somehow I suspect all you guys that write for this blog sell gold or survival food to the rubes. Oh and lose the sweater vest Tony... it makes you look like a Gypsy King

"If the conclusion is jumped to that the 'public need' precludes individual sovereignty"

Basic Nazi philosophy: "all are not equal, in terms of measurable rights and responsibilities contrary to rule of law", targeted at Jews and others arbitrarily DECREED "subhuman" in Nazi Germany, demonstrated to elites the incredible amount of tyrannical power that can be achieved by pitting group against group which they abstracted and generalized to: "entitled" versus productive where they profit by "pretending to mitigate the inevitable conflict", of their own creation.

Luckily, this is a basic survival of civilization issue and the grim reaper of "Mathematics of Rule" is forcing us, collectively to "get real", or DIE:

Click to view link

I only know one language, and I attempt to base my premises on first principles.

I did make up one word. I called it fluffpoonery.

Here's the land value argument (which is a red herring in this discussion, an effect, not a cause, but I will relate it to the underlying cause of everything).

The concept 'value' presupposes the questions 'of value to whom, and for what'.

And you ask the source of rights, even after I stated that they are conditions for survival, and cannot be granted nor erased, but only respected or violated.

I will sum all these concepts up with a very simple story.

Grandma lives in a humble abode on a small lot which she has paid off through many years of work. Her lot is on a private road. She and her neighbors pitch in to pay another neighbor to maintain the road. She pays for private garbage collection, has a well and septic system, etc.

One day, Grandma gets sick. She ends up paying for medical bills and does not have enough money to pay the property tax on her property.

The local authorities give Grandma plenty of time and numerous notices to pay up, but Grandma does not have the money. Eventually, Grandma's property is sold at tax auction. Grandma cannot redeem the property and eventually the buyer obtains an eviction notice and the local Sheriff is sent over to the property to evict Grandma.

Grandma sits behind the door with a shotgun and informs the Sheriff that she has no place else to go and that she is not leaving.

The Sheriff asserts his authority, breaks in the door. On seeing Grandma sitting there with a weapon, one of the deputies fires a single shot and dispatches Grandma.

And all is well in Ingo's world.

Grandma's right to property issues from the right to Grandma's life, and in the violation of Grandma's property right, the State took Grandma's life, in executing the only possible means of denying that right, which is the threat to life itself. The authority of the state to do this issues from the position that the collective owns the land and may evict anyone from their land upon pain of death. If you want to redefine what 'ownership' means, do it in this context, please.

All value is subjective. Grandma valued the property she paid for because she needed it to survive. If she was put out in the cold, she would die. The state valued the land as being worth more than Grandma's life.

(In fact, the value of the property to the state is secondary, the ultimate value to the state is actually keeping hold of this power of life or death over the subjects. If necessary the state will make an example out of someone once in awhile to keep the rest of the human herd in line. It must, under all conditions, never allow its authority to be undermined.)

The State issued the ultimatum: comply or be killed. It matters not how gently the agents of the state try to avoid the ultimate assertion of authority. At the bottom, that authority rests on the threat to kill you.

It does not matter which kind of fluffpoonery anyone throws up to distract from the basic issue. If you believe in property tax, you believe the state owns everything, including the lives of its subjects. And you must advocate shooting Grandma if she won't comply.

Money is a secondary consideration in this. Implicit in the concept of money is the concept of property rights. If you cannot live anywhere except at the permission of the state by payment of rent, then you don't own your property and you don't own your money. And you don't own your time of life. Which means you don't own your life. The State owns your life. If you force the issue, the state will exercise its ownership over your life by snuffing it out.

Some arguments have been raised against private property ownership on the basis that some people might end up having too much property or might make too much money in a free market for property, or might drive prices one way or another (the assumption being made that a free market in property is 'bad' and thus must be 'regulated' by The State). Without putting a name on this position, which seems to insult some, I will simply assert that envy and the desire to destroy the well-off and the desire to personally benefit from unearned wealth stolen from someone who earns it are a very ugly motivation upon which to base a concept of civilization.

I have not promoted one scheme or another for paying for government, 'public property', or 'commons'. That is a separate issue. Before you can arrive at some agreeable scheme for these issues, you must first resolve the question of whether an individual owns himself or is a subject of whatever authority happens to be in power in a given region.

The 'need' for government power to own everything either erases the individual right to life and property, or it does not. If it does not, then perhaps a means for voluntary financing of 'public property' can be devised that does not deprive individuals of their right to exist for their own sake. If the conclusion is jumped to that the 'public need' precludes individual sovereignty, then the entirety of the discussion is unnecessary. The gang with the guns will do whatever it wants to, up to the limits of the tolerance of the subjects, until the day it exceeds that tolerance, and the subjects rise up in arms and kill off the old boss and install their own. No discussion of rights or ownership is necessary or even relevant. The only thing that matters is the balance of power. The power to kill. Equally frivolous is the attempt to reason with whatever gang of thugs rules over you. If they go through the motions, it is for appearances only. Ultimately, the only calculation that determines their actions will be the maximization of the unearned wealth they can extract from you if they are intelligent enough to make that calculation, or more to the point, how far they can go before you flip out and come after them with your own guns.

No, we are on the same page.

The reason Ingo "feels" his "challenge" to prove him wrong is impossible to meet is that by splitting "land value" into a sum of basic land "value" (which is taxed) and "value" of capital fixtures / improvements which is not taxed, the "value" of the land subject to tax immediately drops to the "value" of underlying land. This action will be met with human reaction.

Ingo appears to assume that the "people with guns" and no productive ability to achieve their survival will be content to have their "tribute" and command of the resources of their prey dry up. Far from it. Regardless of the land value, how it is calculated, property owners are eminently extort-able. Any land tax will be increased to the maximum tolerance of the prey.

This is human nature: meet maximum goals, with minimal effort. And, goals can only be achieved (among people) by some combination of force / fraud or mutually agreed trade. Usage of force / fraud (if you can get away with it, and states can / do) is much more efficient, since it is much easier to steal someone else's productivity than to spend the time and energy (life) being productive yourself.

As to Ingo's absurd statement that no one is evicted for non-payment of taxes, how does he explain the large number of "tax deliquency" land auctions that occur on a daily basis?

As to concerns that Ingo and I will get into a "pissing match" over this issue and exit DB in "a huff", getting all abusive to each other over a mere $1000.00 in fiat is absurd. Ingo appears reasonable, in fact he just made an extremely Libertarian statement to Weeble: "Just leave me alone".

I also intend to be "reasonable", but will not "agree to disagree" on the fundamental point that unavoidable, compulsive "taxation is servitude". In fact, mankind has been polarized and fighting on this very issue, for all of history and, we are again on the verge of losing civilization because servitude is incompatible with civilization.

IMHO, Ingo is just offering a different form of servitude of property owners. It will not work, but may appear to until GREED of the tax decree'rs / eaters again adapts to the point of maximal tolerance, collapsing civilization.
mill rate

"Use value" and "land value" are synonymous. They are they same thing.

The use value of a specific piece of land is determined by the use to which surrounding lands are put. If you tax, i.e. charge a "rent" for the use of the land, and people are still willing to use it, does that diminish the value of the land... ??? Of course not.

It's like saying that an increase of rent in your rental apartment diminishes the value of living in it, if you accept the rent increase and stay living there you acknowledged its value.

The useful idiots, who carry water for the elites, are taught to object to "renting" the land. A "land value tax" is not actually a "rent" which is collected for the benefit of some feudalist/communist land lord. It's called a tax, because the revenue thus obtained pays for the cost of mostly local government services.

A "land value tax" is the ONLY tax which is allowed under the U.S. Constitution, since wages and wealth are specifically prohibited from taxation. The state constitutions are all constructed to administer the use of lands by means of a "land value tax". The proper application of a "land value tax" breaks down at the local level, because of politics.

Our politics works on the local level through campaign contributions made by real estate developers and real estate speculators. It works on the national level through campaign contributions made by the member banks of the post-1935 Federal Reserve system. These are the dirty little secrets which the useful idiots are supposed to obscure with their mindless babble about "free banking", "competing currencies" and "free market in land". Most of these guys that write this garbage could easily get a job with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

However, if you want to do some thinking and avoid becoming a useful idiot, you have to get your terms clear, understand the U.S. Constitution and use common sense in your thinking process.

Dave,

Be careful... .you are catching on to things. My suggestion is that you better get these things clear in your mind, and that you develop a conviction in your believes, before you voice them too often to others.

They will attack you and scorn you, because it shatters their paradigm. You better be able to understand what is happening when you disagree with people who have been dumbed down, and robbed of common sense throughout their lives. They can become vicious. It's normal, but scary nevertheless.
Just a warning.

This real estate game is as old as European settlement in North America. While the early settlers where true Anglo-Saxons who despised the British feudal system, later settlers were bitten with the real estate bug, thanks to their upbringing in Britain. To mind come two prominent delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention, James Wilson and Governeur Morris. Both of them speculated in real estate and promtly lost their shirt. Both ended up in debtor prison.

America to this very day is involved in a battle between the Feudalist mind set and the Anglo-Saxon mindset as regards regulating the use of land.

With the win by the Americans over the British at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, the American Anglo-Saxons won over the British Feudalist. Yet, the battle between the two mindsets has never stopped. Black slavery was an aspect of the feudal mindset in America. Look how long it took to get rid of it, and the cost in lives which was paid to do so. I am an Anglo-Saxon at heart. I loathe the feudalists and communists, and I fight them and their useful idiots. It is part of the American way, and it is the only way to stay free, but as I said, nothing comes easy.

However, I am happy that you are becoming aware. You can either be a useful idiot for the priviledged elite, or you can stand up for equal opportunity for all Americans. You can't do both.