>

It's semantics, really. I mean, yes on the most fundamental level of course the state controls all of the land within it's boundaries. Are you suggesting that when people buy land, it's only real ownership if they are to be able to form a sovereign nation? 
I'm guessing not, because of course a nation would not usually have an interest in literally selling parcels of land to sovereign citizens. The land was always owned fully by the state at one point, and it granted what we colloquially call ownership to individuals. And when it did so, it did so with terms and conditions that those individuals had to accept... namely that they agree to abide by the rules of the state that the territory is controlled by, and yes this includes taxes. This is true now, it was true in the "wild west," it was even true in feudal Europe. But at least today we have a democratic process for levying taxes instead of by fiat from a king.
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. >

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. >

Think of property taxes like a contractors lien on your home.
Except instead if contract work it's for government services that you and the community enjoy. >

If I don't own my house, car, cat, desk and the cans of soup in my pantry, who does?
How can the government seize my desk under eminent domain? >

If the government believes your desk is evidence of a crime, they can seize it. Did you carve criminal confessions into it? >

No, but my cat did. >

If you don't own it, how could it be seized?
How does the government take something from me that's not mine? >

You’ve got a self-contradictory set of claims there. 

You don’t actually own property
De facto it’s ownership. 

Do you want to drop claim (1) or (2)? >

I agree with the criticism of eminent domain, but the idea that taxes mean the government actually owns your property is just absurd. 
Property ownership is an asset and if you owe an excessive amount of money that you can’t pay back than some or all of your assets can be forfeit. This is the same on if you owe taxes, won’t pay back a loan, or lose a civil law suit and can’t pay. If you owe me $100k why should you get to keep your home and never pay me back? >


the idea that taxes mean the government actually owns your property is just absurd.

OP's view depends on the mechanics of tax forfeiture, which allows the government to remove someone from a property in much the same way that a landlord can remove someone from a rental. Importantly, the government can do this no matter how carefully the the property owner has arranged to avoid any use of government-provided services and has satisfied all other debts.
Contrast the government's rights over land with the government's rights over just about any other asset. Consider a car. When you buy a car, that car is yours in perpetuity. The government cannot take your car except as evidence in the case of a crime and you have the authority to tell the government to bugger off if they try. After completing the initial payment, there is nobody to whom you owe an ongoing fee to maintain the possession of your car. It is simply yours, forever.
So, who has the right to possess land perpetually without being obliged to pay an ongoing fee? Only the government does. That makes the government the true owner of the property, under the theory that ownership includes the right to permanently possess the owned object. >

!delta 
I still disagree with the idea of you having to pay taxes means you don’t actually own your property, but I am very interested by your point about the government being the only entity that can own property without risk of forfeiture. I.e. public land is and will forever be the governments property but yours can be seized in some cases. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/alpicola (37∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


People like to say this about china but how is that not the same in the US?

No. "Possesion" (right to use) and "Ownership" are two different contexts. Former is able to be terminated due to any reason, while latter is not able to be terminated and can be only transferred.

Property taxes are just government’s way of reminding you that you can’t actually own anything, even your own home or the fruits of your labor.

No, taxes are an inherent part of living in a community - you pay to maintain the community whenever it will be in form of money or work. It's just that we universally accepted that monetary tax is most suitable to be used.

Don't pay it and your property gets seized.

No, if you don't pay you incur a lien on property. Your property is not getting seized, it is getting sold to someone to pay off your debt. That is a major distinction, government cannot just decide that you are no longer to own that particular property.

While officially in China you don't actually own the property and technically you're obtaining the right to use it. De facto it's ownership.

Nope. Ownership cannot be revoked, it can only be transferred. Possesion can be revoked at any time.

the government can seize it at any time under eminent domain

No, government cannot seize it. They can take it but they need to pay you compensation for doing so. All because you are "owning" the property instead of "having right to use it". >


No, if you don't pay you incur a lien on property. Your property is not getting seized, it is getting sold to someone to pay off your debt. That is a major distinction, government cannot just decide that you are no longer to own that particular property.

Except that's not what happened in the case of Geraldine Tyler. She has spent the last several years fighting the government from an assisted living facility after falling $2300 behind in property taxes. To collect that debt, the government seized her home, sold it, and pocketed the money from the sale.
Ultimately, she owned a total of $15,000 in fees, interests, and penalties, plus the actual tax debt. The state foreclosed the condo that she owned and sold it to satisfy the debt, selling it for $40,000. However, the state did not return the remaining $25,000 from the sale.
The 8th circuit court of appeals ruled that seizing a condo worth $93,000, selling it for half of that, and then pocketing any excess money beyond what is required to pay a tax debt is not an unconstitutional seizure. 
It is standard practice if you fall behind on property taxes for the government to come in, seize your house and sell it, then pocket any extra money beyond what is required to fill the debt obligations. >


It is standard practice if you fall behind on property taxes for the government to come in

Lemme set this straight, it is not a standard practice in most places I or my friends lived, so it may be US-specific thing as I only lived there for a short while. But I owe a Δ for shattering my low expectations for US treatment of law. Holy fuck, that is something. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Morthra (61∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Property taxes are just a fraction of a homeowners budget so your point is nill >

I don't see how that's relevant. >

Owning property under US law means you have a bundle of rights. These rights include: the right to possess the property, the right to control the property, the right to exclude others, the right to enjoy the property, and the right to sell or transfer the property. 
So that’s what “ownership” means in the US. It gives you a lot more rights than renting property! But you’re still subject to laws. It’s not like you have your own little sovereign nation. You can’t create nuisances that bother your neighbors. You can’t build a commercial establishment if your area is zoned for residential buildings only. You can’t perform human sacrifices on your property. And yeah, you have to pay property taxes. 
Ownership doesn’t give you unlimited rights. But you still “own” your property. >

What does it mean to own property? >

Taxes are created and increased to cover cost of the gov (historically often war but sometimes other things as well). The gov will come up with various ways to tax people to get more money and avoid people demostrating against it. Taxes funds thing some people like (e.g school) and fund other things some people don’t like (e.g war). Taxes are also created to influence people’s behavior, higher/lower tax on certain goods. 
In order to make sure people pay their taxes and do not think to do otherwise, the consequences are usually severe. So, it is not that you don’t own you property it is just that the gov really want its taxes and to discourage anyone who doesn’t want to play along. >

How does one own anything? It means one has the ability to keep an object to oneself, denying access to said access to other parties.
In ancient times, property was kept through ise of force: armies and guards were paid to keep their lord's lane in times where invasions were common. Even if invasion was unlikely, soldiers would be kept just in case.
Today, hiring guards and armies is very unnaccessible to the people, but there is a strong apparatus that you finance to keep your property for you: the government.
In case of any violation of the law that concerns your property, you can notify the government so they can take action. The police can arrest trespassers and you can sue people for damages.
This service is compulsory, though. If you cannot pay for their services, they will take your property as compensation. >

Property taxes are essentially a service fee to the government for keeping your land safe, in the same way that income taxes are essentially a service fee to the government for keeping your person safe, and various community functions the government performs.
Eminent domain exists, but doesn't give the government access to simple arbitrary seizure. Notably, the US government is required by law to compensate a fair market price to seize property via eminent domain, and this isn't just in name.
The California high-speed railway project has been stalled for years and years, and will be for nearly a decade more, due to complications with eminent domain. This is unlike China, where they were able to complete their high-speed railway projects by 'seizing' land quickly at a tiny fraction of land market price: because de facto and de jure, China owns all of their land, the US does not. >

Its funny that fair market value is never even close to what you could get on the open Market. >

The delegation of "ownership" has always been decided by some type of social rule. The current system encodes your right to decision rights and potential gains of whatever you possess. The system that awards you legal ownership also the one that provides enforcement of your legal right to the item, whether it be from thieves, angry mobs, or overzealous private institutions who have other ideas on how the asset should be used. In turn, the people who protect you ask for some kickback. Don't pay, and your protection from seizure goes away. The government doesn't possess the item nor have decision rights of the object. Therefore, they have no ownership of the item, until they take it from you. Which theoretically anybody can do, they just don't have a weapon stronger than the legal protections and crime enforcement the government gave you. >

You're correct. But you do own the right to usage. >

If food has a price, do you actually have the right to live?  I'd claim yes. >

Regarding taxes-- If you do it right, you get a nice income tax break that can easily offset the property taxes you pay and a good chunk of the mortgage too. Buy a big chunk of land an hour or two away from town. Call it a "farm" and throw some seeds down once a year. Grass is a crop too. Seriously. It is. Want a great tax break? "Lease" your grass farm to someone who owns livestock for $1 per year for "grazing". No one cares if your farm is profitable or how often the goats actually show up at your "ranch". Now, you have an investment where you can store and build wealth while also getting a tax break. 
The tax scheme basically shifts tax dollars from the federal level (income tax) to the local level (property tax), with the help of your favorite accountant. 
Land that you own is not just property for you to use, it's a playing piece in the chess game of finance and wealth generation. Buying that piece gives you the ability to use it in the game. Renting it is just you being a game piece for your landlord, along with the property too. 
Do you want to play the game? First you need to learn the rules... 
Source: My girlfriend inherited a small piece of land and had this conversation with her dad's accountant. She took me along to help her make sense of it all. There are a lot of specifics that went over our heads, so don't kill me if I left out some esoteric details!