Is the State Right or Wrong?
I have no problem with people refusing to pay property taxes. They are a grossly immoral, socialist tax that should have been done away with a long time ago.
Think about what a property tax means, Vilmar. It means the more successful you are, the more comfortable your life, the more the government taxes you. It doesn’t know a boundary based on how much you made this year. It means that if you saved up for 10 years to buy a really nice new car, that you’ll pay the same “right to enjoy the fruit of my labor” tax as anyone else.
Not that I am for an income tax, mind you, but property taxes strike me as much more of a punishment for success than income tax. It generally doesn’t matter how much money you made in a year, you could make absolutely no income at all, but your property still gets taxed.
Posted by Mike
08/11/2004 at 01:43 PM
That’s NOT the point, Mike. Until we make property taxes go away, we must do as a great man once said, “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
You can’t break the law and then expect the law to treat you like some sort of hero for having done so and then rewarding you for it.
I agree that property taxes are not right but until we do away with them, the way to get out of paying them directly is to NOT own a home.
So where would you be then? Renting? And paying the tax anyway through your rent?
Try again.
Exactly what Vilmar said - change the tax law if that is your gripe. Otherwise, you knew what you were in for in the matter of non-payment of taxes.
I agree. FUCK ‘EM.
Posted by Deb
08/11/2004 at 02:01 PM
And then what happens Vilmar when the state says that you have no right to either protest its taxes or speak out against its taxes? According to Romans 13:1-7, America’s Constitution has no legal authority because it denies the sovereignty of God by saying that the authority of the federal government comes from the consent of the American public. Therefore, there is no theological conflict between the federal government outlawing free speech, assembly and elections to help the state enforce their tax laws.
I cannot think of a single part of the U.S. Constituion which can be legitimately claimed to recognize a “God-given right” that is mentioned in the Bible. From what I have read and studied, there is no correlation between the allegedly God-given rights of the Bill of Rights and the Bible.
So what that means is that until you are explicitly ordered to violate God’s law, you cannot resist the state even when it violates your basic rights.
Posted by Mike
08/11/2004 at 02:12 PM
Oh and Vilmar, according to Romans 13, if you were to take up arms against the federal government then, you’d be in rebellion against God which means that the feds could lawfully put you to death.
Posted by Mike
08/11/2004 at 02:13 PM
ER… I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure here in Florida where they have similar laws and it takes a minimum of 3 years before the home is auctioned. 52 months I’m told is the average.
At the auction any surplus after all back taxes, fee’s, court costs, interest, etc. are paid any remaining balance goes to home owner ( unless he has previous leins on the title which get paid first).
Also the folks that buy the tax lein have an additional 3 years to file for foreclosure or the home owner is off the hook, (like thats likely to happen).
There are ways to get out of a tax lein in special true hardship cases, but it ain’t easy. I have also heard that if you have a tax dispute , you can deposit the tax in escrow with the county clerk of courts while the dispute is litigated.
Few home get auctioned for back taxes in Florida, most owners work out something with the third party that holds the tax lein.
Still if there is huge windfall due to a housing boom (this is Florida) they don’t loose it all.
I figure that’s fair as taxes go....
Posted by Ric Brandt
08/11/2004 at 03:11 PM
Mike, you are STILL missing the point: a person who violates existing law (in this case, tax laws) runs the risk of losing what they have.
Plain and simple. Want to revolt and not pay? Go ahead. Just a long as you realize there are consequences.
As for the argument as to what I would do when the state prohibits my right to protest--well, chances are I was the one responsible for voting in the fucks who passed the law. I can either vote new people in, start a revolution, or move.
But none of that is germaine to the discussion at hand and really has nothing religious about it. I only used that expression to highlight my feelings: I live in an area that charges taxes, I chose to live there. I must abide by its rules.
To throw religion into the mix would make us no better than those crazy muslim fucks.
OK, once more, try again.
Back to the point lads. The guv’mint made a profit selling the house. Should they keep it? No, says me.
This ain’t a private loan. This is the guv’mint.
The starting position has to be that the guv’mint is wrong, dishonest, evil, and it’s up to them to prove otherwise.In a lot of jurisdictions a bank foreclosing on a mortgage has to sell and cough up a surplus. What kinda nut would give any guv’mint more powers than a bank?
By the way, the house was owned by your grandmother, who was in hospital in a coma and your granfather was too upset and elderly to read and understand the registered mail. Does that make a difference? Why?
Posted by Fred Z
08/11/2004 at 06:11 PM
Folks, the whole point that you are all missing here is that the government is now, was intended to be and always should be a NON-PROFIT-ORGANIZATION. The guvmint is not a company, out to make a profit. Got that? Government should NEVER be allowed to make a profit on foreclosures. PERIOD. Any overages the government has after performing its duly appointed tasks should be returned to the people to whom it belongs. That was the whole point of the Bush tax rebate and a central point of Conservative philosophy. Only Democrats think government should make money. To keep them in comfy useless jobs.
Vilmar,
You really don’t believe in inalienable rights then. Regardless of where I live, certain basic rights should not be restricted. One of them is ownership of my property. The whole point of the McCulloch v. Maryland ruling was that the power to tax, is the power to destroy. If the government can tax the mere ownership and use of your property, then they have already established the power to destroy your property ownership entirely.
It is my right to live in my community. I derive that by the fact that I rent an apartment in the area and have established a legal residence here. It is my right to reside in the state of Virginia because I am an American citizen born here. I did not get that right because the community decided it was my “privelege” to live here.
If my rights are abridged, then the government’s actions are not legitimate. I am quite aware of the consequences of choosing to not pay taxes. In fact, if the income tax rate goes up to socialist levels when the boomers retire, I just might move to Switzerland, Israel, Costa Rica or one of the Eastern European countries like Estonia or Poland until the people tire of socialism. But then, I’d have the luxury given that I’m middle class, to do that. These people probably didn’t.
And if you don’t want to bring religion into this, then don’t bring in a religious justification for your position. We can play it either way, whichever way you want. My point is that if you want to seriously base your argument on “Rend unto Caesar” then be prepared to justify why you have a right to go against the state if it bans all protest and verbal disagreement with its policies and suspends elections indefinitely. Why? Because technically, until you are forced to violate one of God’s laws, according to Romans 13:1-7, you have no right to violate any of the laws of the state. Therefore you’d have no right to criticize the state, no right to publically protest it, fight it, vote anyone out of office, etc.
I see neither religious nor moral conflict here, only logistical problems. As the saying goes in this day and age of the rule of law being whatever the court and prosecutor says it means at the moment, “do what thou wilt, with respect to the policeman around the corner.” The governments in this country do so many more non-governmental things than they did 2000 years ago, that I see no obligation to “Rend unto Caesar” most of my income and assets.
When the average person is an unconvicted criminal, the rule of law is farce. When you think that these people were anything other than stupid for not paying the tax or applying for hardship exemptions, remember the old Roman saying, “More laws, less justice.” If the law has any purpose other than to pursue justice then it has no legitimate authority or reason to exist. The only reason to obey it then is as a matter of self-preservation.
Posted by Mike
08/11/2004 at 07:48 PM
Allan,
That’s what I had in mind when I wrote my case against “user fees.” I even went one step further, which is to deny the state the ability to even keep the fines it collects from criminal convictions. What should it do with them? It should put them into a special fund and at the end of the year, the people in the jurisdiction vote in a popular referendum what charities they want to donate them to.
Posted by Mike
08/11/2004 at 07:52 PM
Mike
Using Vilmar’s “religious” justification for paying taxes you need to read the context of the incident where the statement was made. When the question of paying tribute (taxes) came up, Christ asked whose picture was on the coin. The answer was Ceases, so Christ said “Render unto Creaser the things which are Ceases and unto God the things which are God’s”. Using today’s standards, your money has Federal Reserve Note written on it and “Creaser’s) pictures. Although it’s your money, it’s the Federal Government which gives it worth and value, just like the coin that Christ held in his hand. I don’t like paying property taxes, especially here where you have to pay them on your automobiles, boats, motorcycles, horses, homes, etc. It is a tax on hard work and success. But, since I live in a free country, I am free to move someplace where I don’t have to pay these taxes. Since I choose to live here in Missouri, I will willingly pay my property taxes as the law dictates. In the mean time, I only vote for those who are against taxes or raising taxes. Vilmar was correct in how he used this reference in its context.Also, could you name a few God given rights? This term is used all the time and I have even used it but in reading the Bible I have yet to come across any. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not rights in the Bible. Just point out a couple references and I’ll look them up. You can send them to my email address so we don’t have to burden others on this Blog.
Posted by Bob
08/11/2004 at 09:38 PM
Bob,
There is no such thing as a God-given right. You don’t even have a God-given right to live. That is why I have cynically stated in the past that human freedom and Christianity are probably not compatible. The more I read the Bible, the more I get the feeling that the “Godly” state is supposed to be a totalitarian state.
Posted by Mike
08/13/2004 at 06:41 PM
