>

If it gets to the point where the government can seize it, I can still sell it,   Because I own it.
In some cases, that sale would make me a millionaire many times over.
To /u/Berserkgutx, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E. >

Just to get the implication straight here are you saying that if any item has a tax associated with it that you do not own it?
Or are you saying that "ownership" literally doesn't exist? >

I see no issue with sales tax. But annual tax that says you own something sounds less like ownership and more like renting >

You aren't renting, you are paying a fee to society for all the things that protect your property. Things like police, fire, courts, and military. Without paying for these things, you don't own or rent; you hold until someone stronger comes and takes. >

I don't have a problem with taxes. Sales tax and income make sense. Property does not imo >

Say you own a house or piece of land. I decide I want to live there and I just move in without your permission. Say I'm also physically larger than you and armed (so there's no chance you can physically force me off your property yourself). What are you going to do about it?
Most people would say they'd call the police to have me arrested for tresspassing. Well, in order for there to be police there needs to be a funding mechanism for them. That's where your property taxes come in. Your not paying "rent" for your land. Your funding the society which establishes and enforces the property laws which allow you to own your land. Without that society and law the land is owned by whoever is strong enough to hold it.
Likewise with the fire department you expect to show up if your house is on fire. Or the public roads you drive on to get to your house. Or the clean air and clean water all around your property. Or the education system which educates the workers who built your house. Etc, etc, etc. >


Well, in order for there to be police there needs to be a funding mechanism for them. That's where your property taxes come in. 

This was not always the case - nor is this how it works in many other places around the world. This is not a necessity - it's a red herring. >

Where in the world currently is there no funding mechanism for police?
You either end up with law enforcement being paid for and therefore controlled by tyrants or a highly optimistic self regulation scenario which doesn't work in a modern society. We're not going to revert to the frankpledge anytime soon. >


Where in the world currently is there no funding mechanism for police?

Property taxes, dude. Not public law enforcement. >

Okay, all the other services property taxes cover..? >

What services? Do you live in the states?
67.4% of my annual property taxes go directly to the school districts because in the state of Illinois, the state has failed to cover 50% of public education (our constitution explicitly states that the state is to be the primary funding source for public schools in the state). So they only cover about 24% now. Which means alllllll that extra budget gets covered by... you guessed it... property taxes.
You know what else just happened? A public charity event for our police. The fire department holds raffles and fundraisers too. We have parks. Is that what you're talking about? The big open piece of land that requires two hours of attention once a week? >

It seems like the issue here is that your intuitive, absolutist notion of property doesn't correspond to the property as it is legally defined or culturally understood in your society. An American can own property, that just doesn't mean what you'd like. >

Welcome to half of r/changemyview posts.

"I have an absolutist definition of [X] thing that does not match up with how that concept is usually defined. Therefore, [Y] doesn't have/isn't actually [X] thing/[X] thing doesn't actually exist. Why is [Y] so awful? CMV."

"No country is really democratic, because only direct democracy is true democracy, and no countries are direct democracies."
"Morality doesn't really exist, because there are different interpretations of it, which conflicts with my view, which is that only one set of ideas is morally correct."
"The sky isn't really blue, because blue light is defined as electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of exactly 472.5 nanometers, and the sky sometimes doesn't reflect light at that specific wavelength." >


you don't actually own property
Property taxes are just government’s way of reminding you that you can’t actually own anything

You do if you live in Croatia, where there is no property tax. >

Think what OP is failing to understand is that even if property taxes were abolished, they would still have to pay other taxes in place of it. If they fail to pay those taxes, the government can still sell their property in order to get their money. No matter what you do if you owe the government money, your property is at risk because it is an asset that can be sold to pay off your debt, which any court will approve if you owe enough money and cannot reasonably start up a payment plan. I'm sure in Croatia, instead of property tax there are other taxes that cover the essential services they property taxes cover in the US. >

Just because the goverment can seize your shit, doesn’t mean you don’t own it. If a kid has 5 dollars in lunch money, and a big bully can take it from him at any time, does he not own those 5 dollars? >

It’s only yours because the bully is nice enough to let you have it, as long as you pay 1 dollar to them. If you don’t pay then they’ll take it all. >

So the biggest kid in the playground owns everything in the others' pockets, and only by kindness he lets them possess it? This is kind of nonsensical, from both a practical sense and a legal sense >

Never said the bully owns it. I meant he could take it if he wish, ergo he’s a bully. If he wasn’t a bully, as per the previous comment, then he wouldn’t take the money, nor ask for a cut to let you keep the rest. >

Ah, misread and didn't realize you flipped the bully analogy. Except if the government is the bully, he's also protecting your 5 dollars from other kids, made sure the entire park is safe from intruders, gave you the opportunity to earn that 5 dollars and let's you do you virtually whatever you want to do with those 5 dollars, except for a little off the top that he needs to keep the whole thing running. All the sudden he doesn't really sound like the bully anymore. Other kids take the deal, and get frustrated you don't pay. They call for a little bit of social order, and decide there should be some consequence >

You can't own anything without a community that has rules about ownership and you don't get cops and judges to enforce those rules for free. >

I think this encapsulates it pretty well. Our infrastructure protects what we own, and provides us with our services. Those things don't come for free. That's part of what property tax is.
Not to mention, especially if your property is paid off, even in the most expensive properties your property tax is extremely negligible. Rent / mortgage (in the US at least) is the biggest bill for the majority of people, reduce that to just property tax and you can live lavishly off of 30k per year >

Question: do you mean you *can't* truly own property, or that in the current legal system you don't actually own property?
​
Because if it's the latter I'd ask if it doesn't imply the former. How would one truly own property if it's not by a state with backed force declaring that it's yours? >


How would one truly own property if it's not by a state with backed force declaring that it's yours?

I would imagine by prohibiting the ability of the government from taking your property for non-payment of property taxes. The state can still enforce your ownership without demanding ownership rights over your property in exchange. >

But it's not the excuse of why they can take away your property that lets them take your property (i.e. non-payment of taxes)
What lets them take your property is that they have the power to do so in the first place, regardless of the excuse they give. This is due to them having overwhelming force. Many people call it a 'monopoly of force' but it's not really a monopoly, at best the monopoly is on 'legitimate force' although there's people like me who would argue just because they claim their force is legitimate doesn't make it so.
​
At the end of the day it comes down to the amount of force they have, no matter what moral gymnastics they make to justify it. My question then is, how are we so sure that a state can have enough power to enforce rules but somehow that power won't be enough for them to also break them? >


they have the power to do so in the first place  
...  
This is due to them having overwhelming force

No it's not, it's due to legislation and SCOTUS in the early 1900s. >

States have had the power to take away stuff way before the 1900s >

Also confused... the plan for HS2 in the UK has already taken homes from people to clear the route. Sad indeed, but in what sense didn't they own their houses prior to compulsory purchase orders? >

The fact that someone took something from you just means ownership changed. You owned it and now you don't. That's because ownership is a concept, shared by a community that you have the right to control a property. >

OP has certainly opened a can of worms...
In one sense, yes - if it can be taken, you might consider it theft. Taken without recompense seems a definite no. Being part of a collective society - not so clearcut. Like not owning your entire income - the social contract requires those who can to pay tax. Society =compromise. There are wildernesses available for those who choose to abstain. >

I agree there is still wilderness available for those who choose to abstain. No one is being forced to do anything as long as they are allowed to travel to the wilderness OR had the opportunity to travel to the wilderness in the past.      
Also, I would prefer if a majority of society would change their opinions to believe "income taxes are theft" because then it would be true. Society determines what theft is and it is my preference for society to change our opinions so that income taxes are theft. Hopefully, we get there someday. >

The definition of property requires there to be a threat of violence in the event someone who isn't the "rightful owner" of said property tries to take it with out permission.
In the case of a modern human society, the threat of violence is carried out by the state.
So unless your an anarcho-primitivist who feels that the only way property is a valid word, is when the threat of violence is carried out by the individual  person. Then yes. But we would be living like cave men, or wolves or some shit. >

In a hypothetical state of nature you don't own property either - anyone larger than you can bonk you on the head and take your shit.  If ownership of yoir property requires that it can never be taken by another, no one owns anything!
But I dont think this is what people mean by ownership. When people talk about ownership of an object, they're referring to a relationship between you and the object that's constituted by and acknowledged both by you and your community >

If not "own" what word would you use to describe having a property that you pay taxes on? >

A rental with a really big deposit and a landlord that isn’t legally obligated to do anything to maintain the property >

I mean, I get your point here, but what does "actually own" really mean here? If your "ownership" is contingent on taxes / trust in government, okay, you might want to argue that you don't "actually own" it. But what's the alternative? If we're out in the wilderness and I build a spear, do I "own" that spear either? Not in any more meaningful sense. I can use it for exactly until a stronger / cleverer person comes and takes it from me.
So you can define "ownership" however you want, but if you happen to redefine it as something that doesn't exist, that seems like a mistake!
As for US vs China, I mean, fair enough that there are similarities there. But there are also similarities between "owning" and "renting" even within the US. None of these systems (US "ownership", US rentals, Chinese whatever-they-call-it) are exactly the same. They all involve different rights, responsibilities, and enforcement mechanisms. You can compare and contrast them, but usually ownership implies a certain level of rights (albeit rarely unlimited rights), and in the US, "ownership" meets this bar but renting does not. I'm not familiar enough with China to really comment on where it falls there, but it seems unlikely that its actually as similar to US "ownership" as you seem to be implying.