Like owning land?

[quietfanatic]

It sounds like there is a huge potential for abuse and reminds me of many of my problems here in Australia.

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! RANT RANT RANT

Our state (NSW) Premier has got a law passed that effectively enables the government to ignore public opposition to development if it is in the state's interest. It is very difficult and expensive to go court and the state government has massive influence on the Land and Environment court so it is all too easy for them to start building and get away with it. Many local councils are corrupt, taking bribes from developers and those dangling the employment carrot. In several cases the government seems to have been totally wrong but there is little you can do to stop them. Politicians are usually making decisions primarily for political reasons because they think that your vote will be insignificant. The only way developments have been stopped is with massive media coverage (which is surprisingly rare) or long court cases which freeze the development application process and convinces companies to look elsewhere.

I am incredibly pissed off by the huge land taxes we have to pay on our investment properties and even on your residence if it goes over a certain amount. It is supposed to target rich people, but it mainly hits the middle classes. I believe that taxes on land you already own are unjust, if not criminal, especially seeing that in Australia we are already taxed heavily at the local, state and federal level on income. I am a bit of a lefty and wouldn't mind so much if they actually spent the money on health and education, but most of it seems to disappear. And then the federal politicians vote themselves another pay rise.

Personally, my family is in financial difficulties because our 'investment property', a beach house for holidays, not profit, has been hugely over valued. We don't make any money out of it because it is only rented for a few weeks each year in the summer holiday season. The new Valuer General, some bastard New Zealander, made the land value jump by more than 150, 000 in one year, supposedly based on market value. But that is bullshit, as no one would pay that kind of money for the land. They may take other things into account but they don't disclose them and have the nerve to say that you cannot complain about the details of the system. If you don't pay the tax, you are heavily fined. We payed the large tax and hope to get part of it back, but we might be forced to go to the Land and Environment court to challenge the valuation. We cannot afford to get a lawyer and the court is already heavily biased in favour of the government, although they are supposed to be neutral. Although we are not wealthy, we are not poor, but understandably many are being forced to sell at very low prices as they can't even afford the tax. So much for market value.

My old high school is the only normal, government school left in the Eastern Suburbs. It is just up the road from Bondi Beach. Like the universities, it is severely strapped for cash and students are streaming to the private schools which now get more government funding than the government schools. The government promised to refurbish and upgrade its facilities. Most of the students are at a secondary campus of the amalgamated school, located in a very prestigious area. As part of the 'Building the Future' program, they have added several new blocks to the larger campus, but the old buildings are falling apart and need restoring. The government claims to have run out of money for the project and would like all the students to move to the main campus so they can sell the secondary one for many millions to developers. The students, parents and teachers have decided not to move until the building is completed. I will be curious to see what happens next, as I don't think the Premier or the federal government can claim that it is in the state's interest to go back on promises.

Our state governments are all Labor (liberal) but our Premier is right of Ghenghiz Khan. The stupid Australian people let the Liberals (conservatives) control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, so now there is a massive attack on unions and education. There is little that can be done to stop them. This was primarily because most people fell for scare tactics and forgot that most of our prosperity is due to the economic reforms of past Labor governments and high commodity prices.

 

[Bradylama]

I believe that taxes on land you already own are unjust, if not criminal, especially seeing that in Australia we are already taxed heavily at the local, state and federal level on income.

But see, as a landowner you are entitled to rights and privileges that others can't interfere with. It is the purpose of the State to protect your rights as a landowner, but it is impossible for the state to enforce those rights if it has no means (money). Land taxes should never be criminal because they are necessary to protect landowners. You don't own income, however. Income is the measure of rewards you have earned for the work you've put forth. By taxing your income, the government is essentially sapping your effort.

Nobody likes being heavily taxed, though. Especially when that tax money has no discernable purpose, and that is the problem inherent in massive beurocracies that lessen the threat of accountability.

 

[welsh]

@ Quietfanatic- sounds like you are suffering from a middle class that is in decline and an upper class that has figured how to take advantage of the state to make itself richer. Taxing the middle class out of land opens the way for purchase by those who can pay for it- upper classes. Naturally this group will have more influence in the courts, which would favor the upper class. Moving government funds form public education to private means that the government is also adopting a policy of protecting the richer classes against the poor- class insulation. This sounds like its about income redistribution- and Australia it seems to be going from the poor to the rich.

I would also be curious to see how the lower classes fair in this. Frequently the lower classes can be mobilized with a promise that they get a better share of the wealth, which comes from the middle class (after all the rich won’t share). In the end the poor still get nothing while the rich become more powerful. Danger here- no middle class = no democracy.

But it sounds like the problem has more to do with representation and exclusion of middle class. It sucks. I sympathize. We have a version of that in the US too.

It’s only when the middle class gets hit does it respond. Since they generally don’t care about the lower classes who usually get screwed, perhaps they will get more vocal.

But perhaps not. Often they lack the power to organize and protest as well as the lower class groups nor the power of influence as does the upper classes. We have a version of that in the US as well.

Losing what little investment potential you have sucks. After my father passed away, my Mom had to utilize what investment they had made to help cover the basic bills and even she had to work in a factory. I sympathize.

@ Pollock- Agreed that extended responsibilities can lead to a weakened state becaue it is over-stretched., But only if the government is not funded or staffed adequately. Yet all “great powers” have expanded their bureaucracies and administrative reach (as well as participation in economics) in part due to the demands of globalization. Therefore you are not likely to see the administrative reach decline because it can’t.

So libertarians and republicans would prefer to keep staffing down (by not hiring) or by cutting taxes (leading to debt) or by trying to transfer much of the management to market participants. The first two has caused a variety of problems. Declining staff means there is both a brain drain as civil servants are not replaced, plus an increase in expense as retiring civil servants are hired a private contractors. Debt has public consequences in terms of repaylment. Plus, it allows the government to channel public goods to those in its interests while screwing those against it (Give money to church groups while short changing urban public school programs). Shrinking budgets means that overloaded bureaucracies have to do more with less, and reducing administrative efficiency.

Some transfer is possible if you can account for places where the market either fails or account for negative externalities which have a greater impact to declines in state provided public goods. Furthermore once given control of what should be public functions, those non-government participants can increase the costs to the state (and taxpayers) because they have privileged positions within the state. So defense contractors making a killing in a war while our troops don’t get the armor they need.

As for the Constitution- yes its vague. But then a lot of law is pretty vague and left to the courts to interpret. Without that vagueness we wouldn’t have liberal judges being called activists and conservative judges reinterpreting history to fit their political ideology. It’s still a common law system- so hopefully a few of the judges know the difference between being loyal to the law and not to a political ideology.

@ Bradylama- So you are still living off Momma’s teat?

The problem with college libertarians- most of them are still living off their parents’ largess and have yet to either take a little responsibility for themselves or try to make it on their own. No wonder they wish to protect privilege, as long as they stand to get it.

Show me some African-American who came out of the slums and made it in school and then advocates libertarianism, and I’m impressed. At least he’s got character and determination.

Seriously, most college libertarians either-
(1) Are morally vacuous.
(2) Inherited these ideas from someone else (probably their parents),
(3) Are so dim-witted they can’t see much past their dogma.

I figure you in category 2 as your arguments are often full of holes and are weakly thought out, but at least you try. The question is whether you're be blinded by your own dogmatic belief in Libertarians. But then why not, especially if you come from privilege.

As for my bias, you’ll have to do better than that. But if it makes it easier for you to draw a picture. I worked my first factory job at 16, worked 30 hours a week while an undergraduate, paid my way through law school, and now when I am not working on the ph.d, teach minority undergraduates from poor school districts how to compete with middle and upper class white kids from rich school districts. Maybe that’s why I have such little respect or sympathy for those of privilege and opportunity.

But see, as a landowner you are entitled to rights and privileges that others can't interfere with.

Entitled by God? By natural law? Bullshit.

As a landowner you are not entitled to dick unless you have a system that protects those rights. Otherwise you live under power of the state that can take as it wishes. Thus the Hobbesian bargain between society and state. Once the king gave out parcels of land to his rich nobles in return for military services. With time lower classes sought to bargain out a better deal so they had property rights.

What rights you have are determined by law. What laws you have are determined by political processes themselves a consequence of bargaining among factions of society. If you have rights to property it’s only because the institutions of property ownership have been fought over and bargained for over centuries. The quality of your bargaining rights is determined, in the end, by the power of social groups competing over substantive ends- the distribution of property. Right now, in Australia, it sounds like that interest is going to the wealthy and the elite maybe with the help of a lower class that feels that it has been left behind.

It is the purpose of the State to protect your rights as a landowner,

The purpose of what State? State’s don’t breath, think or smell. They serve. States are creations by those in power to maintain their distributive ends- their power and ability to perpetuate themselves.

The question is what coalition is in power and how shall the state serves that interest. In the past the state, as agent for those who rule, has taken property away or it has given it away- it depends on what state you refer.

To take property away or threaten it arbitrarily is foolish in a capitalist country, for without property rights there is little capitalist development.

but it is impossible for the state to enforce those rights if it has no means (money). Land taxes should never be criminal because they are necessary to protect landowners.

Land taxes, like all taxes, are primarily a means by which the state can control wealth and raise capital to distribute goods and provide services. They are a means of extraction, and as such as subject to significant contention between and among those that pay taxes.

This is why lots of old folks don’t like to pay property taxes that go to public schools- since they don’t stand to win. This is also why rich property owners may utilize their power to negotiate bargains that taxes smaller property owners at higher rates. This is why poor folks don't cry when middle class taxpayers lose their homes because they can't pay taxes.

As the notion of “crime” cannot be determined without law, the question then is whether the state’s use of law is consistent with a legitimate use of its’ coercive power. Where the state taxes to the point of forcing a sale on behalf of some over others, than there is a question of its’ legitimacy. If you are middle class and the state is taxing you out of your home, than you might consider that government illegimate.

Furthermore if the state has included rules and policies that limit the power of some groups to use corruption to gain favorable treatment in political bodies- such corruption may be illegal or criminal and the tax law itself invalid.

Which returns us to Kelo vs New London- was the political process corrupt and manipulated, illegally, by the corporate interests. If so, then the taking should have been illegal because the decision itself to take was corrupt.

You don't own income, however.

Tell that to the guy that worked for it after a long hard day. Or the guy who used to make $10 an hour working for GM 25 years ago, who got let go when the plant moved to Mexico and now can't make even that. Oh wait, that's not something most middle class libertarian college students have experienced....

For most people your income is your livelihood, that which keeps you housed and fed. Those who don't care for it are apt to lose it.

Income is the measure of rewards you have earned for the work you've put forth. By taxing your income, the government is essentially sapping your effort.

By taxing income the government seeks to receive payment for the public goods it provides and services that the public expects. Ideally those who benefit more from the public goods provided by the state can pay more for those goods. The question of whether the tax system should be regressive, progressive or flat- is again a question of politics- themselves fought over by social groups.

Nobody likes being heavily taxed, though. Especially when that tax money has no discernable purpose, and that is the problem inherent in massive beurocracies that lessen the threat of accountability.

This is why it is over polities of extraction that social groups are often most in contention.

The problem of accountability is one of corruption and influence, and is subject to the type of bureaucratic institutions that exist and the functions they perform as well as their ties to the coalitions that shape policy.

Thus the problem of libertarians- they find fault as inherent in the state, which itself is little more than an agent for those that wish to influence policy.

 

[Bradylama]

@ Bradylama- So you are still living off Momma’s teat?

No. Though if you're going to discredit me because on my Origin Story, what's the point of even talking to you about anything? I'm obviously just some dumb college shit who could never be right about anything. Of course, you wouldn't actually have the balls to say that to my face.

I'm done talking to you, then if you're not going to respect my opinions.

Didn't have anything to say before about accountability, huh? I suppose you would know all about that, and how best to avoid it for your clients.

But here's the thing. Would you agree with me any more if I was a Poor, Black, Gay, Jewish, Libertarian?

I know you didn't mention the rest before, but so long as we're playing the pity card, why not go full guns?

 

[Dresnar]

Just another way for the government to gain more control, I would rather the government admit that it isn't as democratic as it used to be rather than secretly taking away our freedoms. :S

 

[Loxley]

What if they did, what would you do then?

 

[Brother None]

On an incredibly funny side-note:

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

@Kharn- Ah the Nazis- you do realize by raising that you lose this argument.

Couldn't help it when you mentioned relocation. It's so holocaust.

The Government of the Netherlands has never used eminent domain to seize property?

'course! The last house my parents lived in was temporarily scheduled to build a big watchamacallit (a circular traffic square to safely direct traffic, wha'ever), though the house still stands today as they changed to plans to build a smaller one.

The place I currently work in, which is a pretty big building which house three non-seperate companies, will be torn down around 2008 to make way for new housing.

So the direction company makes way for housing is known. Housing makes way for a company would be rediculuous at best here, Holland has a huge housing shortage as it is

 

[WarMonger]

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

funny how things can come back and bite you in the bum

saw that on another site and was about to post that here... good thing i checked

 

[TheSarge]

It's not like they can just come up to your house one day and say "Sorry, but we're gonna buldoze your house now. Congratulations, you're homeless"
They do have to pay you for the land (not to mention the house). After all, you can't legaly demolish a house you don't own, and you can't build anything on land you don't own (or at least rent).

The trouble is that these corporations often times have several city councilors in their back pocket, or own their asses outright. Hell, what's to stop somone who sits on the corp's board the from resigning, retaining his shares in the company, and then running for city council?
Up here in The Great White North* (or Canada as we sometimes like to call it) we have a litte thing we like to trundle out whenever someone tries to pull something like this. It's called "Conflict Of Interest". Perhaps you've heard of it? We didn't ionvent it, but MAN does it get a lot of use. You'd think it was a puck the way it get's thrown around. Basicly, it means that you cannot personaly profit from any decision you make as a government official, and if you do you get to leave politcs forever and go rot in cell while your lawyer charges you big money to defend you from further embarasment and shame.

*if that was too much of an obsure reference for you, I suggest that you drink more stubies and wear a touqe while saying "Hoser" a lot. If that doesn't work, insert your head directly into a vat of pure maple syrup until you have the urge to shoot a beaver. (the mamilian kind, not the vaginal kind)