First Love

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Flanders, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. Flanders


    Sep 23, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    This from North Dakota puts all of the presidential election crap in perspective:

    Go over everything Romney said he will do and you won’t find anything that cuts the ground out from under Hussein and the parasite class more effectively than abolishing property taxes. N.D.’s REPUBLICAN governor sums it for the entire nation:

    I do not know anything about Governor Dalrymple, but someone should tell him that changing everything is the goal.

    I’ve posted countless messages about strengthening real property Rights since my first message board in 2000. I must admit that I never thought I’d live long enough to see a state do what North Dakota is on the verge of doing.

    After I read a NY Times article I felt that my first love had returned; so I want to go over some things I posted over the years. Keep in mind that property taxes are levied and collected by state and local communities, while protecting real property Rights crosses over to the federal government. Eminent domain abuses shows that the federal government opposes property Rights. Let me set the tone with this:

    “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” That definition is attributed to Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895), German social philosophers, revolutionaries.

    At the time that pronouncement was laid down in Europe it sounded pretty good to people who had no property. The basic method used to impose a Communist dictate on American homeowners is quite simple: Confiscation.

    Don’t pay your property taxes and the Socialist teachers’ unions will bounce you out into the street faster than an old-time slum lord ever dreamed of doing. I’m singling out the teachers’ unions because they are the primary beneficiaries of property taxes but not the only ones.

    Incidentally, from a Socialist/Communist perspective property taxes are a far greater detriment to individual liberties than the income tax because property taxes gives the government and the teachers’ unions far more leverage over the homeowner than does the income tax.

    Let me clarify taxation in the context of my premise.

    Fear of the federal government turning to property taxes for income should be a very real fear to Americans because candidates for federal office sweat bullets at the thought of turning the teachers’ unions against them. Why should that be? Property taxes are levied by each state or local community; so anyone running for federal office should not be afraid of the teachers’ unions. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority are afraid because local property taxes pay salaries and fund lucrative pension plans.

    Major and minor political parties cater to, as well as fear, the teachers’ unions because the Ministry of Propaganda is squarely on the side of teachers. Not squarely behind teaching the three R’s at the elementary level which no one is against, but squarely behind teachers feeding at the tax trough for all they can get.

    Obviously, the members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the NEA do not want anyone holding federal office they don’t approve of. They know that the day might come when the federal government challenges the things teachers’ unions have been getting away with for so long. Teachers’ unions want office-holders in Washington who are indebted to teachers.

    Property taxes dictated by teachers’ unions is not the only problem. The EPA is claiming ownership of the property Americas are taxed for “owning.”

    Americans have been told for as long as I can remember that if a criminal is not given a fair trial we all lose our Rights. Have you ever seen that same principle applied to the timber industry, mine owners, and ranchers when their property Rights are diminished or taken away by the EPA? If their Rights are taken away, it must follow that my Rights are also lost.

    One government

    There are four tax collecting entities in the US: Federal, state, county, and local governments. Those four constitute one taxing authority. One entity will never question another’s absolute authority to tax. The Right to collect taxes is the only absolute Right the federal government allows the states to exercise. If you have doubts, take a look at the things the federal government is ordering states NOT to do. Enforcing voter identification is one.

    Every tax increase in this country is planned and controlled by Socialists in Washington, D.C. no matter which entity actually collects the taxes or which name those taxes go by.

    The only difference between state and federal taxes is the method of collection. In that area the states have the advantage because they can confiscate real property, while the federal government cannot do a hell of a lot about it if tens of millions of Americans refuse to work at the same time they refuse to pay a tax on their incomes.

    Bottom line: Taxation is a game of Ping-Pong with the taxpayer being the ball. The federal government taxes income until it sees serious resistence forming; then it tells state governments “We got enough for a while, now you go and get some.” The states say the same thing to local governments especially in major cities.

    You can see the game being played when the federal government cuts funding to higher education, welfare programs, or whatever. The states then tell the Ping-Pong ball “We must raise your taxes to make up for the shortfall.” Back and forth goes the ball. Ending the game by taking the paddles away from the players did not appear to be an option until some North Dakotans decided to take the paddle away from one player.

    Now, let’s go to a more comprehensive solution.

    Every home should be a secure castle surrounded by a constitutional moat. Neither tax collector, nor trial lawyers, nor the Courts, nor creditors, should have the legal authority to confiscate a primary residence. We now live in the year 2012; so it’s time for a constitutional amendment protecting homeownership from nineteenth century socialism. After all, private property is supposed to be protected by the Constitution anyway; so the legislative task shouldn’t be too difficult.

    Before anyone points to the economic upheaval that such an amendment would trigger, consider this: There is no immutable law that says local and state government must be funded by property taxes; so a new freedom from government is worth any amount of adjustment to the way the economy now works.

    Quite a few men and women died for a taste of freedom from oppressive government; so embarking upon a few years of financial upheaval is not a big deal. And every non-Socialist American will know that the prize at the end of the road will make the journey well-worth the disruption. Americans will gladly tackle any problem if they know that a little more individual liberty will be the reward.

    Note that the present economic upheaval put Americans on the road to LESS freedom.

    Should such an amendment ever be ratified absolute homeownership will be the most substantial constitutional Right Americans have acquired since the Bill of Rights was ratified. It will be a Right that every American can enjoy, and not just a privilege designed to benefit one group over another and called a Right.

    Absolute homeownership means that a primary residence will be beyond confiscation. Just so there is no misunderstanding the protection only kicks in after the deed is in the prospective homeowner’s name. Mortgage lenders would hold the deed until it is redeemed. Mortgage lenders would not be protected from their creditors. That’s how it is now; so there is no radical change involved.

    I want to make it clear that anybody can buy as many private residences as they want, but only their primary residence would be protected from confiscation. For instance, a husband could own one primary residence and a wife another so long as their names are not on both deeds. Additional properties would be taxed as commercial property. Taxing commercial property would remain exactly as it is. Undeveloped land would also remain the same in accordance with state and local laws.

    Living indoors is a tax liability

    Homeownership has become an ever-increasing, never-ending, tax liability. Homeownership is also the tightest grip that the Socialists have on the individual’s throat. Try breaking that grip by not buying a home and you are left with the choice of paying exorbitant rent, living in a slum, or finding yourself a clean room outdoors. Under the present system of taxation the choices offer nothing but misery.

    Philosophically, the best way to cripple socialism is with one constitutional chop. Absolute homeownership protecting every primary residence is the way to get the most bang for the buck with the least amount of legislative hanky-panky. Instead of trying to jerk everyone out of the public trough that doesn’t belong there, just stop putting feed in the tub to begin with. Starving the leeches away from the trough is the way to go. Besides, the thought of watching American Communists tapdance around such a constitutional amendment just tickles me to no end.

    In addition, ownership of a primary, non-commercial, residence should be absolute in order to revive the original American Dream and increase incentive for first-time homeownership.

    Homeownership used to be the American Dream in my youth because it freed families from the clutches of the hated landlord. Property taxes were very low on a single family residence in those days and everyone believed that no matter how tough things became they could always beg, borrow, or steal enough money to keep from being put out in the street by the tax collector. (Remember Scarlett O’Hara and the green dress made from drapes?)

    No one I knew in my youth ever gave a damn about freedom of the press, or religion, or speech for that matter. One does not need the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to believe in God.

    Freedom of religion has become a joke because it no longer includes freedom from religion, i.e. the Socialist religion.

    Freedom of the press is meaningless unless you own a printing press.

    Constitutionally guarantied freedom of speech implies that you can’t speak unless the government gives you permission to do so. Politically correct speech proves that.

    Nevertheless, the Rights that dominate political dialogue flow from property Rights. Without property Rights every other Right is meaningless. That’s why Third World people’s should be taught real property Rights instead of that garbage in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    In any event, Americans with good sense know that First Amendment Rights mostly benefit the government class and the hierarchies of organized religion.

    Instead of helping homeowners, excessive property taxes turned the government into landlords. Pay your taxes/rent and we’ll let you live in a private residence. Some North Dakotans appear to agree with my take:

    North Dakota Considers Eliminating Property Tax
    Published: June 11, 2012

    Unfortunately, the American Dream morphed into landing in a prominent spot at the public feed tub. I cannot count the times I heard federal officials —— after being appointed to a high-level federal job —— say “This is the American Dream come true.” Their dream was always accompanied by a heartfelt tale of humble beginnings. To hear any government official make such a statement because he or she got a government job is a little scary if it turns out to be true because the question then arises “Where did everyone else’s American Dream go?”

    In truth, Americans never stopped struggling to hold onto the Rights they were given when this country was founded; so shooting for a new Right for a change will be a unique experience for the private sector citizen. As near as I can tell the only new Right Americans got since the original Bill of Rights was ratified is the Right to slaughter infants in the womb, and that Right was only given to half the population. And it was granted by 7 lawyers on the Supreme Court not by a constitutional amendment.

    A pitched battle against the amendment I suggest is sure to take place when you look at the list of people and institutions who will oppose it. If nothing else comes of it the fight will at least separate Socialists from decent-people.

    Clarification: My use of decent-people as a compound word should not be taken as a moral judgement. It is simply a way to identify individuals who do not want to control anyone’s life and resources except their own.

    Finally, property taxes should be done away with BEFORE repealing the XVI Amendment. Property taxes are not federal yet. However, if the Income Tax Amendment is repealed the federal government will turn to collecting a federal property tax.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  2. Flanders


    Sep 23, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    That’s bad news to be sure. Happily, it’s not permanent:

    The first step in North Dakota will spread to voters in those states where property taxes are still relatively low as homeowners see creeping socialism slowly inching its way towards them.

    It’s too bad the issue in North Dakota was tied to an oil boom. The real issue is funding necessary government. That can easily be accomplished in every state without taxing homeownership. Unfortunately, most Americans do not separate necessary government from unnecessary government. Had North Dakotans done that they would have seen the benefits of no property tax far outweigh the freedom-killing benefits government offers.

    North Dakota Votes Against Abolishing Property Taxes
    Wednesday, June 13, 2012 09:04 AM
    By: Martin Gould

    Voters in North Dakota overwhelmingly voted against getting rid of property taxes in a statewide referendum on Tuesday.

    More than three out of every four voted not to amend the Roughrider State’s constitution to become the first in the nation without such a tax.

    The proposal came in the middle of an oil boom which has given North Dakota the lowest unemployment rate in the country and left politicians in Bismarck in the enviable position of having large surpluses.

    Connie Sprynczynatyk, executive director of the North Dakota League of Cities who opposed the proposal said North Dakotans realized it was all about local control. "We were confident as soon as people realized the measure's dramatic shift away from local control, they would not support the measure " Sprynczynatyk told CNN.

    A grassroots organization called Empower the Taxpayer was behind the initiative — known as Measure 2. The group believes property taxes are unfair to those on fixed incomes. The group’s chairman, Charlene Nelson told the Bismarck Tribune, “Whether it passed or not, we knew this was only the first step in correcting this unfair tax.

    “We started this movement before the oil boom,” Nelson told the Los Angeles Times. “But this isn’t about being flush with oil money. It’s based on principle. Property tax rates are rising faster than people’s ability to pay them.”

    If passed, Measure 2 would have abolished property taxes retroactively to the start of the year and charged state politicians with finding a way to fund counties, cities and towns.

    Opponents claimed that would lead to centralized control in Bismarck and possibly the need for a full-time state legislature to deal with oversight of some 2,100 municipalities.

    North Dakota Votes Against Abolishing Property Taxes
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2012

Share This Page