Talk:Property tax/Archive 1

Archive 1

UK council tax

Does Council Tax count as a property tax? It replaced the poll tax and you pay more the more your property is worth. Secretlondon 23:22, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting point. But I don't think it can be a property tax, because you pay it whether you own the property or not. It is really a kind of poll tax (but couldn't be called one for political reasons, of course). The fact that it charges you more for living in a bigger house can be seen as an attempt to be a progressive tax, on the assumption that size/value of house will be correlated with income. seglea 01:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The tax is (a) per (private) property, not per person; (b) paid by the owner of the property if the property is unoccupied, although it's paid by the occupant if it is. I would argue that (a) here makes it a property tax rather than anything else; who pays it seems less relevant to me, and the payee still has an attachment to the property either way round.

UK business rates may also count as a property tax, but I'm not up on the details.

The UK's council tax system is ad valorem of a form. From memory - this needs verification and a reference - the UK bands houses by value into bands A-G, where the bands are delimited by the property value as assessed at a certain point in time (1980?) and compared against thresholds. Property improvement (il.e. new building) can affect the banding, I assume they go with notional value.

The rate of tax is modified, with discounts on single occupancy, occupancy entirely by unemployed people or students, no occupancy.

Thus it is a function of property value, but not solely of property value, and the relationship is by no means linear.

Because the selected point in time was one of high property value, the low bands are relatively underpopulated in expensive parts of the country, reducing the distinction between the tax on the average and most expensive properties in those areas.

Anyway, I came to this article looking for something else, and I don't know enough to fill the section in, but I'm hoping that it will be considered for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.20.142 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference removed

A recent, anonymous, editor removed an external reference on the grounds that it was "an insipid article by a pro-tax individual". I haven't immediately restored it, because being insipid would be good grounds for removing it (and I don't know the literature well enough to tell whether that charge is true); it is also somewhat out of date (originally published 1972). But being pro-tax would not be grounds for removing it; we ought to have a balance of pro- and anti- references. So far as I can tell it was the only reference we had that discussed the distributional effect of property tax. Does anyone know a better reference for this issue - ideally a balanced and/or review paper? If not, then I think the deleted reference should go back. seglea 5 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Of course property tax is not "rent to the state", it is each property owners fair share of the funds/budget it takes to run local gov't and state services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.124.41 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any taxes on property means you don't own the property. Fairshare is a slogan pushed by socialists and marxists. Our taxes will never be enough to satisfy liberal/socialist/marxist concepts of Utopia.--69.155.106.231 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That the state retains ownership of everybody's property is an undeniable fact. That homesteaders are not homeowners and that they are just paying rent to the state is an undeniable fact. The owner is the one with the right to acquire possession of property when the renter fails to make payment. That the state has this right because of property tax is obvious.

If you had no idea it was the government demanding payment and not a landlord the only difference you would be able to discern from conventional rent would be the terms of your rental agreement. All the material facts that determine who is the owner and what is a renter remain the same. All arguments which try to prove that property tax is not the logical equivalent of rent are based on the justification of the tax and are irrational from the prospective of what is ownership and what is a renter.

If we are to believe that the state is not the owner charging homesteaders rent we would have to conclude that an owner is some one who has to make payment to someone else or lose possession of their property. This is absurd and a complete contradiction of what is ownership.

Our government needs to quit lying to the people and just come out and admit they are unwilling to let the people own their homes.

Written by Tomas Real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.120.24 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You can’t tax ownership any more than you can make the earth flat by religious decree. What one does when they claim to tax ownership is make ownership into that which it is not. Redefining ownership from that which gives you freedom from debt to that which puts you in eternal debt is ludicrous. Every rational person in the world understands this and that our so called “authorities” are incapable of seeing this makes them into members of yet another “flat earth society”. Taken from the book “If we free the slaves who will pick the cotton” written by Tomas Real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas Real (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

council tax

Any tax on the possession or ownership of property is a type of property tax.

Renters are owners of an interest in a piece of property. Their ownership is limited by time though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalmia (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Property Tax is Rent to the State

Under any system of property tax the "owner" is deemed to be the State and the entity in possession of the property merely the renter thereof. PCE 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pce3@ij.net (talk • contribs)

How is this statement true? What does it even mean? In my experience property is assessed to the owner, who is most certainly not the state.--67.137.235.187 04:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

Local municipalities have increasingly required minimum lot sizes to limit the supply of housing. This forces up the housing prices in an area, keeping poorer people out. Part of the reasoning behind this is that poorer people tend to use more government services.

Where is this supposedly happening? This sounds like someone's political gripe. Some references and some context would be useful if anyone thinks it should be included in the article. -- Beland 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans case study

I removed the claim that New Orleans was the second-largest city in the U.S. before the Civil War. In 1860, New York, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Boston, and Baltimore were all larger. In 1850, the position of New Orleans was the same except it was bigger than Brooklyn. [1] [2] This brings into question the accuracy of the rest of the New Orleans case study. -- Beland 16:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

States And Countries With No Property Tax

What countries have no property tax? And what states within federations have no property tax? Zachorious 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there really no place on the face of this planet where you can actually own real estate? As opposed to just renting it from the local government? (paying money to keep something IS RENTING IMO) Seems a bit unfair that you can't just live on your land without earning money to pay some big strong guy that supposedly knows better than you to let you be. I have done my share of web searching but cannot find ANY place whatsoever with no property taxes.

Now, I understand that municipalities generally rely upon property tax, the most reliable of all taxes (it's pretty hard to hide your property) to fund police and emergency services and other "necessary" functions of gov't, but why can't one sign an agreement to forfeit these services in return for less or no property tax, effectively becoming a small self-contained, self policed country with a controlled border? I don't have AS much of a problem with income, sales taxes etc., but forcing people to either contribute to the economy or lose their property equals slavery, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just move all the anti-tax activists to a county where they can overwhelm the local elections and abolish their county and municipal taxes? It'd be tricky to maintain law and order in that town though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.80 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that alot of squatters and commune residents probably have that very mindset. Also, ever hear of the Free State Project?170.215.105.219 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a year since the above question was posted. I would love to see an answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't pay property taxes in the Cayman Islands. Cooltobekind (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., all states authorize local governments to levy a property tax. In Alaska, it is optional for municipalities, and not all municipalities have opted in. Similarly, in Maine, all municipalities can levy a property tax, but not all of the state is within a municipality. Outside of the municipal areas, the state implements the property tax. Nya gwu (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Malta is a no property tax country, not to mention very beautiful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The country of Hungary currently has NO property taxes. I believe if you look at the former Soviet Satellites you will find many countries with no property taxes. They are discussing it, but with so many people on fixed incomes, and a low per capita GDP, it did not go over too well. As to the other comments above... Land "ownership" is an illusion. As an example, don't pay your property taxes for 2 years in the state of florida and your land will start the process of being sold on a tax deed. if you truly owned the land, you would be billed for your services and it would be a civil collections matter... Instead it is an asset forfeiture action... like a car repossession. They are nice enough to send you a check for whatever money is left over after the taxes are paid (like a car repossession). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.247.171 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

2013.....
Ok,lets review the full country list....00000.00...no property tax!....

• Seychelles.....
• Malta.....
• Hungary....
• Fiji Islands....
• Turks and Caicos....
• Bahamas...no property tax for Bahamian citizens...., residents and foreigners pay 1% of RE assessed value
• French Polynesia...Tahiti....very low,or none for corp. holding of RE.
• St Barts.
• Dominican Republic very low.
• Cayman Islands---very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enedrikisland (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

paying Taxes without money

Say someone wants to withdraw themselves from the civil economy of the United States (or any other country), how do they pay taxes, income (assuming you can define their subsistance such as hunting and gathering as income) taxes and property taxes. My point is how can someone pay taxes without money. The article does not address in what way or which medium is necesary to the payment of taxes to the state, and the posibilities of becomeing exempt. For instance what would you have to do to be perfectly exempt? Own nothing and live nowhere? In which case you would starve. You have to have land to grow food to feed your family but as long as you don't sell any of it, do you have to be taxed? If you have no money then how do you pay the taxes on your property? If you don't pay you get your land posesed, right? Then you starve. So you are basicaly forced into buisiness. Right? So this is an excelent example of how you do not really own the land. You rent it from the government and if you don't make the appropriet improvments, they will give it to someone who will.

Just asking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclose (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That property ownership is subject to certain conditions imposed by government does not mean that the owner is merely renting from the government. In the same way that one cannot walk down the street without subjecting himself to the powers of the police, one cannot own property unconditionally, at least not in an industrialized nation. And just as you wouldn't say that you are merely borrowing from the government your freedom to walk the street, neither is it correct to say that you are merely renting your property from the government.--Leftymn 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You need food, water, and shelter to live. Not money. Now if someone wishes to withdraw from the civil economy and give up the use of money, how do they pay taxes? Do they have to? Is it legal to not participate in the economy of any country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any conditions under which one can become exempt from paying property tax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.36.67 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just replying-As for paying taxes without money, most places used to do this, but do not allow it anymore, which is why they invented money to begin with-they didn't like all the storage space used for storing the grain, cattle, etc. that that king/government took in as taxes. ...However, under US law, from my understanding, taxes are only payable on income if you earn more than a set amount and on barter, only if you gain in the dealings. If you gain nothing in your deal, then taxes are not due-generally.

There are a few places one can go to be relieved of property taxes, presumably, forever. Most of Alaska does not have property taxes, though all the major inhabited areas do. I haven't been able to find any other places without property tax, though. I understand some countries do not have any taxes at all, though I don't know which countries those are.

And, yes, it is perfectly legal to withdraw from the economy, though it may be unpleasant in most places. The process of how to do it is a different matter. I've been investigating this for some time and I am convinced that it can be done and I plan to do it in the near future.

Good luck to you. Jacktheploughboy (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Allodial title is an inalienable title to property, and thus the property cannot be taxed (or transferred). This was common in feudal states, where lords had significant political rights so as to be effectively immune to taxation by the sovereign. Almost everywhere in representative governments and area where rule-of-law is strong don't allow allodial title, as it inherently disrupts the authority of the sovereign government to tax. Allodial titles are per se legal in the United States, and exist in many states in theory, but in practice don't exist in almost any states (Nevada and Texas have quasi-allodial title). Typically, to change a "fee simple" title to an allodial title requires the owner to pay taxes on the land ad infinitum. TANSTAAFL, and if you want land you never have to pay taxes on, the only way to get that is to pay all the future taxes on it first. Either that or be a feudal lord. You can get a similar title by being an Indian tribe I think.

On the other hand, it's not hard to find extremely low property taxes in the South. Mississippi usually has insanely low taxes, many localities levying less than 2 mill. And some localities may allow you to have back taxes accrue as a lien against the property and will collect those taxes by sale of the property when you die (which isn't technically YOU paying the tax, but rather your estate).

Since most property taxes are levied by local government, its completely possible to have local government to exempt one from property taxes, it you can convince the local legislature to give up your money and the image of fairness. 164.67.237.80 (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the greatest lie ever told is the American Dream of home ownership as property tax clearly prohibits ownership making it impossible to ever become free from debt. Property tax is the evolution of serfdom where kings and lords have been replaced by rulers of the State. This medieval extortion, collected on unrealized capital gains, makes the peoples homes into investments of the State. Property tax forces the people into government servitude in order to keep their homes. Clearly as in the past, modern day serfdom is intended to prevent the people from ever acquiring liberty. With property tax the people must pay with government currency. Gone are the good old days when you could pay with chickens, some other farm product or manual labor. Tomas Real (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the State has chosen, property tax, the condition that prevents the people from owning their homes the state is in fact demanding the logical equivalent of rent. It is also clear that if the government taxed our freedom like they do our property no one would be legally walking down the street unless they paid their freedom tax.

Unless you believe the police are God you are no more subject to their power than you are to the wishes of your mother or the poisonous snake in the woods, before you can you walk down the street. Governments don’t give people their freedom; God does, and at their very best governments can only assist in protecting it. A good government would guarantee the right of the people to acquire liberty. Our government, with property tax, is denying the people their right to acquire liberty, and stolen the ownership of their homes.

For society to evolve it must move in the direction of individual freedom and liberty. You would think that in a modern industrial society governments would have done away with the medieval practice of throwing people out of their homes if they are unable to pay the authorities. The fact that governments still practice this primitive, inhumane and immoral method of collecting revenue shows how incapable they are of evolving.

Tomas Real (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Places that use personal property tax in the US

http://evans-legal.com/dan/papptax.html

We really should include some of this information in here. I don't know if North Carolina and Pennsylvania are the only two states that do/have done this, but it should be researched. I think this should could probably be made into a separate article or perhaps even combined with the [wealth tax] page.

Jesse Crouch (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have at least part of the answer to that question. I know all of the states' provisions for taxing mobile homes, motor vehicles, inventory, and machinery and equipment. New page? Nya gwu (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IS PROPERTY TAX REGRESSIVE?

Property tax is the most regressive tax possible. It taxes someone even if they have no income giving it a potential tax rate that approaches infinity. It’s also regressive in that it directly taxes only those with taxable property. For example, I know some one who lives in a home with a taxable value of 300,000 dollars with a tax rate of 2.8%.He has an income of 25,000 dollars. He must pay the state about a dollar an hour to live in his home or about 34% of his income. He also must pay the sales tax and all the other taxes. The only way to make property tax progressive would be to link it to a persons income and if we are going to do this one has to wonder why don’t we just replace it with a state income tax that would be shared by everyone and people would no longer have to live with the threat of the government taking their homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.159.83 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The bulk of the value of real estate is owned by corporations, not individuals. 25% of the population owns no land. And, by and large, residential real estate value is correlated with income: the rich own highly value properties and the poor, to the extent that they own any real estate own low value property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.75.243 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Property tax not only taxes you if you have no income it is the only tax that forces you to make money for the state or they will take your property. Property tax prohibits the poor and those without continuous wealth from keeping expensive property creating a society where highly appraised land can only be possessed by the rich. This makes our society a cast system that effectively prohibits the poor from having property. Ownership becomes a concept of privilege that is only allowed if you’re continually wealthy.

There are many ways in which a poor person could acquire expensive property, but because of property tax there are no ways they can keep it. Property tax goes way beyond just being regressive from a monetary prospective, it is a statement by the government that unless you have continuous monetary wealth you have no “place” in our society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.107.143 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not convinced by these arguments. If a poor guy happened to get (inheritence? lottery?) a one million dollar house, what prevents him from selling it, buying a still very nice house for half a million dollars, and using the remaining half to live in luxary and pay th taxes? Also, it's silly that you say that property taxes are regressive, because their whole intention is to be *progressive*: Two people living in the same town will get the same (for example) education, but if one leaves in a shack in a bad neighborhood and the other lives in a mension in an expensive neighborhood, the former will pay less than the latter. How is that not progressive (the rich pay more)? Nyh (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

“Nyh” You have got to be kidding me. You say, “Also, it's silly that you say that property taxes are regressive, because their whole intention is to be *progressive*:” Wow! You’re saying intentions create fact. So, if I have every intention of having the best theory of gravity it must be true. Einstein move over I’m the smartest person in the world. Have you ever heard the saying,” the road to hell is paved with good intentions”? Your statement is beyond silly it’s irrational.

If someone wins the lottery they are not poor. If someone is forced to try and sell where they live because they can’t pay the taxes it only proves the previous comments are right and you are wrong. It doesn’t matter what the result “could” be. Such arguments as yours are sophistry. Some one living in a shack with an annual income of a million dollars would pay almost no property tax while some one living in a house taxed at 5000 dollars a year with no income would have a tax rate that approaches infinity ….. How is this not regressive?

Whether a tax is progressive or regressive is based on the percentage of your income you pay relative to the income you make. It is a pure and simple mathematical FACT that some one with no income having to pay property tax has the highest tax rate possible. It is also a pure mathematically FACT that this means property tax is potentially the most regressive tax possible.

The facts are clearly stated by people making comments before you and you failed miserably trying to distort what they said. Just look at the first statement, “Property tax CAN BE the most regressive tax possible”; that you are apparently incapable of understanding the logic of that statement is simply astonishing.

The rich almost always pay more but this fact alone has almost nothing to do with a tax being progressive. If you had a situation where all those making under 15,000 dollars a year were taxed at 80% and those making over 600,000 dollars a year were only taxed at 20% the rich would still be paying over 10times what the poor pay yet this would be about the most regressive tax imaginable. It should be obvious to any rational person that just because the rich pay more does not make a tax progressive and the reason property tax is so regressive is that it is based on the government monetary appraisal of the land and not the income of the person living there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.92.28 (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments about Taxation Page

I think it needs to have a sample like start-to-finish of it. For instance, you receive Tax Statements in March 2009 for taxes assessed to be assessed in 2009. Then, you appeal by a deadline (usually April 30, 2009). Then, you appeal it by April 30. Go before a board and present arguments. Then, you are either agruments are accepted or declined. Raising or lowering your taxes.

But, I also want to know if the taxes are post-paid or pre-paid. People want to know if you are paying January 31, 2009 due date of taxes. Is that for post-payment of 2008 taxes or pre-payemnts of 2009 taxes. That was not clear.

Those are some changes I immediately and roughly see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBlaineFullerton (talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The required revenue is not reliable.

The article says "The property tax always produces the required revenue for municipalities' tax levies." Not so, many cities and counties experience large shortfalls in the actual payments received, due to owners who cannot be found, or who just don't pay, and the like. Homeowners who have mortgages must pay, because the mortgagor collects the taxes as escrow and pays the government on time. Other owners may not pay, and while the government can theoretically sell the real estate and deduct the taxes, sometimes the property is not worth nearly as much as the taxes and penalties due.

The current article is not realistic, but I am unsure where comments like mine above should go in a general article. Also, getting appropriate sources may be difficult. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear editor Dthomsen8: I agree, and I have deleted that sentence regarding the "required revenue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famspear (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

While this i strictly speaking true, compared to any other form of taxation the revenue is far more reliable. Also, depending on past experience a factor can be built into the budget to account for the anticipated shortfalls. --Hwaxman (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Add link to Bath School disaster

Could you add a link to the Bath School disaster which was caused by property tax? "The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm." Stars4change (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Intangible assets

This article lists stocks and bonds as "intangible assets."

That's not accurate, at least in the context of corporate terminology. I didn't edit it because maybe I'm not familiar with another use of intangible assets, and also I'm not sure exactly what they're getting at with the phrase, but that definitely can't stay ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.190.133 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you why, but Florida (for example) listed "intangible personal property" as taxable at one time. These were stocks and bonds. Why they employed this particular terminology is not evident to me, but it is probably accurate as far as the article goes. It would be nice to reconcile the two definitions. Student7 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually

Actually, from what I can tell, in most U.S. jurisdictions "personal property taxes" specifically exempt intangible assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.190.133 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"some characteristics or attributes of property, even though intangible, may be considered in establishing the taxable value of tangible property." WAC 458-50-160

It is still uncertain until approved by the state then, correct? In other-words this is not the end all regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.107.163 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Tax levy and tax levies

I notice that "Tax levy" redirects to this article, while "Tax levies" is a separate article. This seems to be a problem.

The term "tax levy" can mean two different things. First, it can mean the imposition of the tax. In this sense, the term "tax levy" is simply the concept covered in the article entitled Tax. In this sense, "tax levy" should not redirect to this article on "Property tax," as a "tax levy" in this sense can be ANY kind of tax, not just a property tax.

In the second sense, a tax levy is a seizure of property by the government to satisfy a tax liability. The article "Tax levies" is the article covering this meaning of the term.

A few minutes ago, I entered the phrase "tax levy", intending to find the material covered by the second sense. It took a while to find the correct article: Tax levies.

I don't think "tax levy" should redirect to the article on Property tax at all. I think there should be a disambiguation for this term, with one alternative going to the article on Tax and the other alternative going to Tax levies.

Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't actually own land, you just rent it from government

Deleted because it is uncited? Hmm, I think we could delete 90% of this article as uncited then.

I will leave this here instead, while I look around for citations.

Where property taxes are assessed, it is not technically possible to "own" land. Instead the land is rented from the government with the property tax being the rent due for use of the land, and property deeds are just a formality that define who is responsible for paying the government rent on the property. Failure to pay property taxes due will result in further fines, leading eventually to eviction from the property by the government.

While virtually all other forms of tax can be avoided through absolute self-sufficiency, growing your own food, etc, property taxes are unavoidable.

DMahalko (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It’s so obvious that a perpetual property tax prohibits ownership that nothing in history comes close to the hypocrisy of calling those subject to property tax home owners. The American Dream of homeownership is the greatest lie ever told. When someone or government can punish or take what is supposed to be yours if you don’t pay them they have converted ownership into slavery. The taxing of ownership is best definition of slavery ever devised.

I see no difference in principal from being forced to make cotton under the threat of a beating and being forced to make money under the threat of being made homeless except we are no longer prisoners on the plantation.

The ruling class has simply wised up and come to realize that slaves are more productive if you don’t make them prisoners. They no longer threaten to beat the slaves but to make them homeless if they cant pay for what they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.85.212 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How about some practical, i.e. real-life examples ?

Hello,

I am a German citizen and wanted some information about Canadian property taxes. The article explains it all in theoretical terms, but how does it look in practice ? Could somebody please insert practical examples, e.g. a $150,000.-- house in Québec, Ontario, and other states, and what the owner would actually have to pay per year to the state ? Does the state actually tax the current market value ? In Germany, you would pay sth. like $150.-- per year in taxes for a 150,000.-- house. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very good comment. I have added a paragraph to the intro explaining why specific examples are infeasible. Your illustration points out the significant differences: localities in Germany are constrained by German federal law. Localities in the USA are often not even constrained by state law, and there is no Federal law regarding property tax. For more info on USA property taxes, see Property tax in the United States, cited in the article. Oldtaxguy (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Property Tax and Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Since all the nations under the UN (United Nations organization) recognized and adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in New York on the 10th of December of the year 1948, this declaration has to be regarded as a fundamental set of articles that cannot be opposed by any national law.

We learn from it, by art. 17 that there is a right to "own property alone as well as in association with others".

Art. 25 recites clearly that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control". So the right to housing still stands also in the event of an economical standstill.

As for eviction from one's own house, on the grounds of property tax default, art. 5 comes in aid stating that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Unless, being rendered homeless is not considered a degrading treatment.

Mathematically a property tax can only be sustained by means of another line of earnings since property alone is not liable to output any revenue on its own. It would only be natural to impose a tax on the real income of people, safeguarding their rights and belongings in crucial moments of life.

Unless, a more general scheme of latent slavery has to be referred to, as inferred earlier on this page, which has been merely misnamed by calling it ownership. But then slavery strikes of course hollering contrast with art. 4 of the Declaration: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms".

Gabriel Serrelli 18:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Serrelli (talk • contribs)

Dear Gabriel: I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is regarded as a fundamental set of articles that you believe "cannot be opposed by any national law" or not, the imposition of property taxes in a given country does not violate that Declaration, and the imposition of property taxes in a given country certainly does, as a general matter of law, take precedence over the Declaration. Famspear (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution in assessing the nature of the tax with its compliance, or rather, its lack of violation of any of the Declaration rights. I’ll retain this information should I ever make a comment in that direction.

The matter is, however, on the righteousness of its effects when it becomes a means of property eviction in consideration that the purpose of taxes is “to pay the Debts and provide… the general Welfare of the United States”.

If the general Welfare of a Nation implies rendering homeless its own citizens because they cannot afford to pay a tax that should lead them to prosperity, there is certainly a subtle line of irony if not absurdity.

And, possibly, it is this that comes into conflict with the rights of property and well-being depicted in the Declaration.

As for the Declaration, while it is true that no law enforces it, it is also true that the United States has adopted it. And its adoption, within the United Nations, makes it binding for any member state. Binding, but then again, with no legal consequences if it’s overlooked or ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Serrelli (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

By definition, if there is no law requiring anyone to obey this "Declaration," then the Declaration would not be "binding." Famspear (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Order

Is this supposed to be in alphabetical order? If so, then Jamaica and Egypt need to be moved... Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

History

I believe a great way to improve the article would be to add at least a brief history of how property tax came to be. Here is what I had added, which got removed: "Historically, the American real estate tax has its origins in old England where funds were raised for the purpose of supporting military expeditions. The tax known as Danegeld was equivalent to 2 shillings per each 100 acres. It was first imposed during the year 868. From that time on, it was imposed whenever someone needed to be conquered. The property tax became so important that the concept was addressed in the Magna Carta. From England to the Colonies, the concept eventually came to be looked upon favorably as a stable and predictable source of revenue. The property tax has been referred to as the price of civilization." Analyst1234 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because the reference link is pure spam. If you can find a more authoritative unbiased source then the paragraph can be reinstated. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Discussion on Reverting Edit to External Links Section

The external link revision 698267892 by Special:Contributions/Ronz, which removed the entire section, was reverted after careful consideration of conflict of interest guidelines, self publication recommendations, SPAM, and paid-contribution disclosure.

Wikimedia allows using material you have written or published and is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies and is not excessive. The inclusion of a link to a Property tax calculator was especially relevant to a page discussing this topic, how property tax is typically calculated, and currently includes no such link (my motivation for offering this addition to the community).

No reasonable person would accuse my infrequent (in total, two) links to content I have written as excessive. Furthermore, the link is none of the spam types described by Wikipedia:Spam:

1. Citation spam
2. Source soliciting
3. External link spamming with bots
4. Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another
5. Affiliate links
6. Videos
7. Bookspam

As for conflict of interest due to paid editing: I was not paid. Likewise, a conflict of interest does not exist because the contribution to Wikipedia was not about myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or my financial or other relationships. Furthermore, the target of the link does not host advertising banners, products for sale, and is even shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence.

I think the editors, in this instance, could take some guidance from Wikipedia policy as it relates to museum curators, librarians, archivists and similar, which are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. Yes, I realize that a simple online calculator is incredibly insignificant in comparison, and certainly not culturally significant, but the intent to provide a benefit to the community is the same.

Certainly, if I ever share such a link in the future, I will used the Talk page in advance. However, I believe that may be extremely unlikely, and I have put future plans to edit WP on hold.

Gnurob (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the coi concerns. At last we have that out of the way.

Sorry, but calculators are routinely removed from articles, regardless of how they got there, per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:EL.

Please note that for external links, the burden is on those seeking inclusion for a link. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Calculators are not referenced in items one through seven of Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Furthermore, calculators are frequently provided as External Links, for examples please see articles Mortgage calculator and Calculating demand forecast accuracy. The calculator linked to from Property tax is neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues as well as technical, such as the use of Javascript libraries.

There was not suitable directory providing a list of property tax calculators. Therefore the link was directly to the [3]. Since this link provides value to the article, and meets the requirements of every guideline you have provided, it clearly meets the allowable exceptions and it is a disservice to the readers of this article to have you continuously delete it.

If there were a better calculator, or list of calculators, to provide for an External Link, I would gladly use it. Please remember that the goal of edits is to reach consensus. Each question you have raised was answered satisfactorily, however continued arguments have been presented rather than focus on the quality of the article. Rob (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No, calculators are not frequently provided as external links. I agree that the rationale for removing them isn't as clear as I'd like. Most are removed simply because they are spam, which is exactly how this situation looks.

How is a calculator relevant to an encyclopedic understanding?--Ronz (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, to have a contribution so ruthlessly criticized, as you have, has remove all incentive to join this community. I feel no motive to edit these Articles, other than to prove hypocrisy. Have you removed the calculators from Mortgage calculator and Calculating demand forecast accuracy? No. Are you using my words under building codes? Yes. Will you allow that contribution to be cited? No. Rob (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove those other calculators. Thanks for pointing them out. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be several, long, reviews of your editing practices, with at least one instance of you being blocked from Wikipedia. I will be following up. Rob (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your link has been removed from this article by another editor. If you are no longer interested in making a case for including it, then I think we're done here. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

property tax recovery fee?

I've caught my satellite internet company adding a "annual property tax recovery fee" of $5.31 to my bill. They CLAIM that's a tax charged to them by my county for the dish in my yard, yet when questioned about it further they simply point people to this wikipedia article. Has anyone else heard of stuff like this? Because it seems very suspicious. 75.107.217.193 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Bird's comment on this article

Dr. Bird has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

As with the VAT piece, this one needs so much done to it that there is no way I can possibly get to in a short time.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Bird has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Enid Slack & Richard M Bird, 2014. "The Political Economy of Property Tax Reform," OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism 18, OECD Publishing.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Property tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003042237/http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Libraries/CT_Manual/CT_Manual.sflb.ashx to http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Libraries/CT_Manual/CT_Manual.sflb.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003154544/http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Home.aspx to http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/Home.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)