undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeorgeecollins5y ago0 comments

1) One of the reasons why prices skyrocket is because people who would feel the pinch of the rising prices and probably move, don't. 2) Nobody has the right to own an asset for pennies on the dollar indefinitely. Because property tax rates are heritable and transferable geographically (once you reach a certain age and only in certain counties) you are creating a tax advantaged class of people in California.

0 comments

Enginerrrd5y ago

>2) Nobody has the right to own an asset for pennies on the dollar indefinitely

That's a ridiculus assertion. When I buy something, having paid income tax and the government gets paid the taxes on the sale, why should I have to permenantly rent that item from the government?

If that logic applied to you car and computer and clothes, and prized heirlooms from your family, I think you'd object. Thats a fundamental assault on freedom and property rights.

Taking it to the extreme, it means ONLY the very wealthy could ever own things like land and that is just a fundamentally unamerican idea.

arrosenberg5y ago

> That's a ridiculus assertion. When I buy something, having paid income tax and the government gets paid the taxes on the sale, why should I have to permenantly rent that item from the government?

Upkeep != Rent. The government uses that money to pay for the roads and services, mainly police and fire (you know, the people who protect your property).

Enginerrrd5y ago

So tell me then, what happens if you don't pay the "upkeep" fees?

rrdharan5y ago

There are actually a number of people who draw the distinction between possessions and land exactly that way. I.e. the argument would be that land ownership should never be allowed.

It’s not an immediately farcical concept from first principles.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsgeorgeecollins5y ago0 comments

0 comments

Enginerrrd5y ago

>2) Nobody has the right to own an asset for pennies on the dollar indefinitely

That's a ridiculus assertion. When I buy something, having paid income tax and the government gets paid the taxes on the sale, why should I have to permenantly rent that item from the government?

If that logic applied to you car and computer and clothes, and prized heirlooms from your family, I think you'd object. Thats a fundamental assault on freedom and property rights.

Taking it to the extreme, it means ONLY the very wealthy could ever own things like land and that is just a fundamentally unamerican idea.

arrosenberg5y ago

> That's a ridiculus assertion. When I buy something, having paid income tax and the government gets paid the taxes on the sale, why should I have to permenantly rent that item from the government?

Upkeep != Rent. The government uses that money to pay for the roads and services, mainly police and fire (you know, the people who protect your property).

Enginerrrd5y ago

So tell me then, what happens if you don't pay the "upkeep" fees?

rrdharan5y ago

There are actually a number of people who draw the distinction between possessions and land exactly that way. I.e. the argument would be that land ownership should never be allowed.

It’s not an immediately farcical concept from first principles.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse