Property Taxes are Right & Just

In an article (in Spanish) published by Martinez-Solanas in his column, he asks whether "Is the Private Property Tax Fair?" and alleges, among other arguments, that: "If the owner does not pay the taxes, the tax authority could sell the house to recover the back amount, even if the unpaid debt is a small fraction of the property's value," and emphasizes that "No one owns their home. The owner is the government, which, after the taxpayer has worked and made an effort to purchase their home, effectively becomes a tenant of the authorities who charge them for allowing them to occupy it."

It is the same argument used buy Gov. Ron DeSantis, who thinks it's wrong for a homeowner to pay rent to the government based on the value of their property. It would have been helpfull for him to explain the structure of the property tax.

Propertu taxes are basically two taxes; one pat assesses the land value irrespective of improvements, and the second assesses tje value of the real property, the improvements. If by "property" he means the value of improvements, I fully agree. One should not be pubished for the improvements. On the other hand, the taxation of land and improvements in America goes back to the Massachisetts Bay Colony as early as 1634. Specifically, an assessment on the value of land only tends to decrease speculation or holding land for mere financial gain. (Land is a location of a natural resource. The value that attaches to a location of land is called economic rent. The word "rent" in evryday use conflates the location and improvement value.)

If the land you occupy has become less valuable over time, should you have to pay more rent to use it? If the land has become more valuable over time, should you pay for what they get, not more of less.

Periods of great land speculation cause the values to spike and then crash. Only when highly valued but underutilized sites are pressured into greater use will the great spikes in land values be moderatd. The solution is for cities to remove all taxation of improvements to land but retain a single tax on the land value alone, equal to what the location would yield in rent if offered to the highest bidder.

However, because local property taxes are based on the assessed capital (, potential sales value), the rate decided needs to the increased periodically as selling prices for land begin to fall once the opportunity to profit by holding land off the market disappears.

Taxes on labor and products of labor (, payroll taxes and sales taxes) leave workers with less. A tax on real property (homes and other structures) punishes improvements and increases the cost of renovation. If we want access to good roads and police and fire department, we should pay for them. The land values in your neighborhood are about equal and reflect the benefits you receive for the location you enjoy. Collecting some economic rent annually, irrespective of the improvements, is right and just.

Barker argues that an assessment on the value of land only tends to decrease speculation or holding land for mere financial gain and suggests that the government keeps ownership of the land and only rents it to people for improvements to that land, that is, houses and buildings, so that speculation is restrained. Even if having full property over the land and its improvements would encourage speculation, the problem would be solved by allowing only homeowners whose property is their primary residence to buy the land from the state as an option to avoid remaining tenants for the rest of their lives. Speculation is not feasible in the house where one lives.

In the article that Barker cites, I highlight, among other things, the following (translated from Spanish):

«According to 2014 estimates by the National Tax Lien Association, approximately $14 billion in property taxes went uncollected each year in the United States. This phenomenon has continued to increase, and these billions in property taxes go unpaid because the homeowner fails to pay them, and the property is then subject to foreclosure or auction. Consider this question: how many people do you know, or how many have you heard of, who have lost their properties, their homes, or their land because they were unable to pay the taxes levied on them? It happens across the country every day.

This is not only immoral and unethical, but it is criminal and a violation of a person's civil rights. Why? Because most property sales occur without the due process of law, which is among the most basic human rights. That is, there has been no court hearing, no trial, no adjudication of all the facts, and no consideration has been given to the ethical legitimacy of the laws regarding the tax in the first place.

If the homeowner fails to pay their taxes, the tax authority can sell the house to recover the outstanding amount, even if the unpaid debt is a small fraction of the property's value.»

Those interested in this topic can read the full analysis to find a more comprehensive approach here ↓
democraciaparticipativa.net/in...la-propiedad-privada

Indeed, Property Taxes are Rent!

Mr Barker argument was an interesting perspective on how he views property taxes. His view that some property taxes provide some benefit misses the entire point of the subject, which is private property ownership.

If any landowner is forced to pay any funds to keep their property, then it is not "owned" but is leased. Failure to pay the yearly lease amount simply gives the governmant the means to seize your property, convict you of a crime, and use what was your "property" as it wishes. The method, the reason, and the purpose of the assessment are totally irrelevant.

First, the state lies to you by saying you own the land. They allow you to put your name on the deed. But it is not yours. Currently, the property taxes that we are required to pay (or lose the house and land) in Florida is approximately $356 each month. Everything we own is paid (no debts of any kind), yet we are still renters (serfs/slaves) on the land.

The "state" (aka cities, counties, parishes, states, and federal government) should only raise money by taxing goods and services. This places the power of taxation in the hands of citizens. They would spend what they want for goods and services and supply and demand would dictate how much the "state" collects.

The issue is the elimination of property ownership, which is a fundamental tenet of the Marxist/communist philosophy–period. So, Mr. Barker, Mr. Martinez is correct.