My Property Tax Bill Doesn’t Fit the Conservative Narrative
If you had to name any single talking point for conservative Wisconsin politicians and their fan-boys on TV and radio, it would almost assuredly have to be the one about how “Taxes are out of control” or something similar about Wisconsin and Milwaukee bleeding jobs and business because the taxes here are just “too high!”.
In fact, there was quite a push at the County level over the last six months to make the case that any increase in the County property tax levy would force people into bankruptcy, they’d have to sell their cat to pay the property tax bill, etc. Many of you who read this blog on a regular basis made that point yourself, despite the fact that even a 3-5% increase in the County property tax levy would only raise your property taxes by several cents a day.
So imagine my surprise upon opening my own property tax bill today to see that not only could we keep our cat and stay in Milwaukee, but our property taxes had actually gone DOWN! And they went down by almost $300, a 6.1% decrease! Just imagine how big a deal that would be if my taxes went UP 6.1%? You’d have tea party patriots calling for recalls and refusing to pay their taxes because a 6.1% increase isn’t mentioned in the Constitution and would therefore be infringing upon their “freedoms”.
How could that be I thought? As long as I’ve been living here, I’ve been told by those on TV, in the paper and on the radio that sooner or later, I’d get fed up with high property taxes and just get the heck out of Wisconsin, and to boot, I had only my own liberal self to blame because I wanted a high quality of life, roads without pot holes, and the fire department to pick up the phone if I needed them.
So sarcasm aside, my property taxes went down this year, and I know a lot of other people’s did too. Not everyone, but a lot of folks in Milwaukee County will be paying less in property taxes this year than they did in 2008. In my case, it’s because our property value went down as a result of the continuing slide in the housing market. The point is that despite all the rhetoric and chicken little talk from certain people, property taxes can and do come down, and that not everyone in this County is facing an increase in taxes that will force them to sell their house and move to Arizona.
Comments are closed.
Communist.
My property taxes went down too.
The city included a nice little info packet showing that the state has been giving less to the city over the past decade, and that this has been offset by an increase in fees.
Well now, taxes have not really gone down, have they Dan?
You, of course, know that tax is based on a homes value. So, while the end amount that you pay is down, the tax rate is up… not to mention all those taxes that were renamed “fees”, that Jim remarked on. You still pay em though. Likely, if you add them up, you are actually paying more altogether, even though your home is worth less.
You assertion here is kind of like some guy who lost his $95k/year job and now works 35 hours a week at Walmart cheering because he thinks that Wisconsin income taxes have gone down.
It’s just not true, and people are still leaving because of high taxes, no matter how much you try and whitewash over the truth.
First off, my property taxes did go down. That’s not “whitewashing”.
Second, about tax rates, that’s exactly my point. Over the last seven years, when house prices were skyrocketing, and property tax bills were too as a result, conservatives never talked about how that was due to an increase in home prices, it was all the fault of “LIBERALS!”.
And yes, the property tax rate has gone up over the years – mostly in modest amounts – but I don’t recall anyone on the right talking about how large increases in property tax BILLS was due to increasing home values, not 2-4% property tax levy increases.
If home values increase, and the total tax levy needs stay the same, then the tax rate per $1000 of value should drop. Unfortunately, the rate stayed the same and the government greedily gobbled up every last penny of the increased levy.
Spin it however you like. Change “tax” to “fee”. Add new hidden taxes to the phone, or cable, or the electric bill, or gasoline, or food, or rental cars, restaurants, hotel stays, airline tickets, permits, or the water bill… whatever you like. The end result is that the middle class guy gets kicked in the teeth every time, and the government finds yet another program that we simply can’t live without. That’s the fact, Jack.
YES! You should APOLOGIZE to Family Guy for lying like a typical liberal. He and people who never held you in high regard anyways demand it, or else they will try to shame you into admitting that you paid MORE in property taxes this year!
And then you should apologize for not apologizing more quickly. And then you should shut down your blog because you’re such an embarassment. That’s what Family Guy and his pals really want after all.
James, what is the weather like on your planet. Here it’s kind of cold now.
Well, I am in the SWern part of the state, and mine did not go down. They were up a total of 9.85%. Since this was a result of state funding changes, I can only assume that I am subsidizing your tax decline.
Laugh it up, this is the last year I will be doing this, and YES people do leave because of taxes.
Year-over-year property tax numbers are meaningless because they are a percentage of home value, which varies. The only numbers that are meaningful are tax as a percentage of home value, or perhaps tax as a percentage of income. You are applauding a decrease in property tax dollar amount, but if your home value dropped faster than that tax dollar amount, that is a net increase in taxes.
Your argument is the same as the government taxing gold that “increased” x% because the dollar lost x% of value.
These things are not meaningful in nominal terms; you need to put them in real terms, because only real terms affect people’s standard of living.
That said, government costs do not generally decrease when the economy contracts. Indeed, often they increase. So, no reasonable person should expect property tax rates and other tax rates to stay as low as they were during the years when incomes and property values were high. They would have to increase just to bring in the same revenue… they would have to increase just to bring in reasonably less revenue!
“Conservatives” across the country are whining about tax rates just like it sounds like they are in Wisconsin, but these same “conservatives” are responsible for the increased size and cost of government during the last 8 years of the boom.
“”no reasonable person should expect property tax rates and other tax rates to stay as low “”
One thing I would NEVER do in Wisconsin is to expect property tax rates to stay low.
The only real measure of property tax levels is the rate per $1000 of home value. That rate has increased significantly over the years. Your home value may tank, and you may pay less due to that, but the real rate has increased… anything else said IS just whitewash.
Conservatives? Outside of Mr. Walker, no conservatives have influenced my property tax rates at any level, city, county, school, matc, or state. It’s all been run by spendaholics, and it shows.
I envy you Foggy! I’ll be joining you out of state in not too many more years though… I’ll be spending my Wisconsin earned pension someplace else.
“despite the fact that even a 3-5% increase in the County property tax levy would only raise your property taxes by several cents a day.”
This statement contains just about everything we need to know about liberals.
Here is the response to it that Democrats both Locally and Nationally are going to be hearing loud and clear through the next 2 election cycles:
That is MY several cents you ARROGANT DICKHEAD.
Not YOURS.
Dan, we sure do share our comminity with a bunch of angry people. Thank you for exposing them. I am not so dumb to not realize that my property taxes have gone up a little per $1000. I am however not so bitter as to spit in the “Gift Horse’s mouth”. I have $250 more in my pocket this year. That is good. My house is valued less than last year. Yep.
It is a shame that everything is always bad in some peoples worlds.
Tell that to anyone trying to sell a house in Milwaukee. Yeah, you lost $25,000 in value, but hey… you saved $250 on property taxes. lol. You folks will say just about anything to avoid smaller government and lower taxes.
I propose the following. We tax property only for basic services. Protective services, schools, roads, etc. We then add a check off box for people who want the extra liberal fluff. You check the box. The politicians spend the money and then divide that amount among all the folks who checked the box. Then we are all happy. I get useful services at a reasonable price, we stop being a tax hell, and Dan, Dr Love and James can assuage their guilt by providing unnecessary stuff at their own expense.
Hm, I should run for office…
That makes complete sense! As long as one of the “basic service” roads is only I-94 from 92nd street to the lake, because for me, that’s the only stretch that serves me on a regular basis.
I’d also like to check off I-43 North of Brown Deer since I never use that. Sound good? Oh, and tax breaks for companies that make $1 billion in profits a year.
You still with me with getting rid of all that “liberal fluff”?
Tax breaks should only be used when government is trying to induce private sector entities to take some action that it deems important. You want cancer research to flourish? Offer a tax break for it. You want companies to hire workers? Offer a tax break for it.
Assuming that we have a reasonable tax system to begin with, specific tax earmarks should never be offered just to fatten peoples pockets. Certainlynot. I would disagree with the term “corporate welfare” though. If it were true to form welfare, the company would be paid to produce nothing at all. If it tried to produce anything, it would be economically sanctioned by loss of all funding. The company would be offered a free meal program for it’s employees and moved into a government owned building at no cost. Now that would be corporate welfare.
I’d be all for a toll road system in WI, Good call Dan… provided that it came with some sort of ironclad guarantee that Doylecrat Inc would not simply keep collecting road taxes to spend on more ridiculous garbage. User fees that are only charged to actual user are a good way to go. I’m with you all the way. Death to wasteful fluff.
Why are Republicans okay with market distortions when it’s done by tax break but not when it’s done by regulation? TFG, it is exactly the same thing. In one case you have a punishment (tax) that you reduce if the private entity does what the government wants. In the case of regulation, you have a punishment (fine, jail) that you levy if the private entity does not do what the government wants.
It’s the exact same thing! Maybe we should enact a 100% tax on everyone and then give a tax credit for each time you obey the government.
You are still limited by the human intelligence of a limited number of administrators and legislators, and this intelligence can never be great enough to see unintended consequences to the intervention (see: recent bubbles and current economic crapfest).
No, you are not getting what I am saying mwarden. If we start with fair and equitable taxes all around, then tax breaks work to increase voluntary economic activity. If we use regulation, then you have government forcing people to take an action that they might not agree with. It’s all about freedom, less government, and more liberty.
I would prefer that we move away from the current plan of having the government punish us for not doing what we are told. The founding fathers had a name for that. Tyranny.
TFG, it sounds like I’m getting exactly what you’re saying. Tax breaks for certain behavior the government wants is exactly the same thing as fines for not doing certain behavior the government wants.
1) Clean my car or I will punish you by taking a cookie.
2) I’m taking a cookie from you. But if you clean my car, I won’t.
That’s the same thing! Are you just reacting to the word “tax” or something?
Yes, he is. This is what happens when everything is viewed through the lens of “taxes!”.
No, clearly you are so addicted to all of the crazy cafeteria taxes on every single activity we undertake that you no longer grasp what I mean by “reasonable tax system”.
If we start from a very basic tax system, say income, property, sales, and business. You want business to do more research into cancer, so you offer a credit for 2 years that exempts cancer research spending from taxes. You do not do it to control peoples choices, or to punish people for not obeying.
The problem is that you start off thinking that it is right for the government to coerce it’s citizens with “clean my car” taxes, and I do not believe in tyranny like that.
The fact that you can’t fathom that concept alarms me, though I rather expected Dan’s reaction. That is the very core difference between us. Liberals believe in making choices for everyone else, and conservatives believe that you should be allowed freedom and liberty to do what you wish.
TFG you still don’t get it. “Encouraging” cancer research by giving it a 5% tax credit is exactly the same as issuing a 5% tax hike on everyone not doing cancer research. Your distinction of intent is meaningless. All uneven taxation is behavioral coercion. You yourself admitted that the intent of issuing the tax break is to influence behavior such that more cancer research is performed.
Picking winners and losers in the market is central economic planning. You are more like the liberals than you think.
How is decreasing the amount of money that government removes from the economy a tax increase for everyone. I never said that we should spend like drunken sailors at a whorehouse. You do understand the concept that government can be smaller and not bigger, don’t you? See, there is that addiction problem again… you see there being an overflowing pot of limitless government revenue, and I see that we can decrease taxes by decreasing spending. You’ve heard of spending less, haven’t you?
Coercion is forcing someone to do something with a threat. Yes, that IS how liberal governance works, but it’s not the only way. If you punish and economic activity with taxes, people will stop doing that activity to some degree. If you end that punitive punishment, the activity will flourish provided that it has value.
It’s like Ethanol. No one wants it because it is a bad product that offers no upside and damages engines. We offered corporate welfare to get it and then we forced people to buy it using the law. Therefor, it costs more at the pump and we are being taxed to pay for again at the other end.
A conservative would solve this problem by ending the mandate, allowing consumers to choose which product they want, ending the welfare payments to the Ethanol lobby and big corn, reducing taxes to everyone, and then trimming some wasteful items like the unused multi hundred million dollar John Murtha airport to provide a tax break to anyone doing research into cleaner, more efficient, and cost effective gasoline alternatives. It would lower taxes, create private sector jobs that would offer new tax revenue themselves, and provide consumers with better products and the liberty of choice. See how it works. Now go wash my car or no cookies for you.
I guess there is no hope that you are going to get it, TFG. If nothing else, that’s pretty clear from the fact that you think I like big government! The only thing worse than taxation is uneven taxation. Tax breaks in housing create housing bubbles. Tax breaks for cars create car bubbles. Tax breaks in stock market investing create stock market bubbles. Etc.
You talk of conservative ideals, yet you want the government to distort the market with tax breaks. Talk about liking big government! If you were just campaigning against taxes, you would be talking about reduction of tax rates across the board, not if you buy this or do that.
Tax breaks are just another way for the government to funnel the citizen’s money to X or Y. It *is* a tax, because artificial demand increases prices, and if you were one of the unlucky ones who was going to by X or Y already, you are going to pay more than you would have without the government intervention.
Just look at recent car prices and home prices, both of which have been propped up with government tax incentive programs.
Selective tax incentives are central economic planning; they are price setting; they are big government.
Please explain how cutting taxes with an equal drop in spending is “big government”. It would shrink the size of government to do that. It would also increase revenue in that economic activity, and thereby decrease taxes even more. How is less, more? I’m not familiar with that new definition of “big”.
And who said anything about subsidizing car or home purchases? There are plenty of things that I would exempt from taxation though. We have this income tax system, and it’s not likely to change any time soon. We need to change it to allow the economy room to breath, not hold our breath until we get everything we want.
Given my choice, I’d get rid of the entire income tax system all together and replace it with a consumption tax. Then we would not need tax incentives at all. Unfortunately, the government still needs to govern to some extent. Obviously there is a balance between the cowboy Capitalism that we had in the early 1900′s and the super regulated economy we have now. Either extreme results in problems.
TFG, selective tax breaks to encourage certain economic activity that some government official thinks is beneficial is central economic planning. It is government deciding what the market should decide based on price structures. That’s how it’s Big Government. Let me know if you have any other questions that I’ve already answered.
I think we just have very different ideas about what big government means. I feel it means a government with excessive tax and spend policies, and you seem to feel that it is a government that governs more than you’d like it to. I am all for massively reducing government spending and making taxation very low and reasonable to encourage economic prosperity. I am not for removing all governmental controls from the marketplace though. That has been tried and proven to be detrimental to the population. It’s the opposite of what the liberals here want and neither of those extremes works.
Some governance is required to keep greed, exploitation and monopolization from taking over the marketplace… that is a tyranny too, just a different kind.
TFG, your response confirms exactly what I suspected. That response could have been drafted by any liberal who reads this blog. It’s even complete with liberal mischaracterizations that imply free market economics includes no government regulation!
Well, please enlighten me as to how the mwarden tax structure works as to be fair to all without ever using a tax breaks or making taxation “uneven”. What do you consider to be “even”. Also please feel free to explain how one regulates the free market without regulating the free market.
TFG, I’m not sure what part is complicated. In order to have even taxation, simply do not provide tax incentives specific to certain behavior. Probably the easiest structure for you to understand is our current structure largely based on progressive income taxes, minus the deductions one would make for home buying, IRA contributions, “green tech”, etc. These things (a) lead to inefficiency and waste, (b) increase the complexity of the tax code and therefore tax preparation costs, and (c) enable an advantage for the rich, who can afford to pay the relatively fixed cost of a tax lawyer in order to take advantage of the deductions that the poor do not know about.
Well, you lost me already on the deductions that the poor can’t use. The poor do not pay income taxes at all, and many of them actually receive additional income from the US treasury. So deductions really don’t apply to people who pay nothing. Under our current system, the rich, whom you seem to think can cleverly avoid taxes, actually pay the vast vast majority of taxes. Your explanation is already coming apart at the seams.
How about this… let’s move to a national sales tax that would require everyone to participate in paying for government… each according to his own spending choices.
Got my property tax bill Monday, there was a small increase of $30.16 over last year’s bill. Per Dan and James, I’m should to be grateful it didn’t go up more.
My sister in North Carolina lives in a house assessed at $550,000 while my house which is assessed for $181,630….she pays less real estate taxes than I do.
Yet her roads are paved, the garbage is picked up, the city water is clean, the fire department modern, the police responsive and her children educated. Go figure.
If I recall correctly, the North Carolina sales tax is over 7% and that makes up for a huge chuck of the difference.
Wisconsin is well behind the curve in our tax collection policy. I’m in complete agreement that our property taxes are too high! But the problem is that every time we try to have a discussion about shifting property taxes to a sales tax just like the rest of the Country (including North Carolina), it gets railroaded by the “anti-tax” crowd.
Dan, part of the problem is that the usual suspects have shifted taxes before, and then, within a couple of years, our property taxes are right back where they were, only now we have another new tax to pay on top of it.
The real problem is that the supporters of more government for every problem do not EVER consider reducing government spending. Coming up with new ways to tax us by shifting one tax to another in a giant shell game results in no net tax decrease.
You say that property taxes are too high. Do you agree that taxes overall are too high, or do you simply think that we need to pay more someplace else in order to reduce property tax?
Family Guy, I think you missed the dramas in City and County last months. Where many government cuts were made. Did you not ever once hear the word “furlough” or “privatizing housekeeping”? If you want a discussion work with given facts. Or I will tell you when I smell baloney.
Yeah, so speaking of “cuts” and “reduced spending”, as Bill points out, did you miss the last several months of debate about the City and County budget? Just two weeks ago, another 11 parks maintenance workers were fired – leaving 15 or so to clean, fix and plow all 144 parks in this County. But that’s probably not enough “cutting” for you, is it? I mean, there are still a few people who are actually employed by the County, and I doubt you’d be happy until they’re all gone.
You say that liberals can never get enough spending, and I’d argue that conservatives can never cut enough. We could cut property taxes in this state by 50%, and you’d still have people screaming about how it’s “NOT ENOUGH!”. Because for some people, it’s not about taxes at all, that’s just the front. It’s about a radical anti-government ideology.
Come now, Dan. You know very well that I don’t want to eliminate all government. In fact, I believe I supported you assertion that parks had been cut to the bone already.
What I want cut is the wasteful special interest, get me some votes, spending. Take the convention center board for example. They wasted millions on buildings that everyone said would not work. Now, that they have not worked, what do we do? Cut the waste? Fix the problem? Nope, we raise taxes to keep the white elephants in business. THAT is what I hate, and you know it.
btw, I had not heard that they cut more parks people permanently. When did that happen? I would not support cutting successful and cost effective services so far that they become ineffective. Of course, that is exactly what Mayor Tom is doing to his Fire/Rescue/EMS services.
And to add, you asked how it’s possible that North Carolina residents pay less in property taxes and I answered and you changed the subject. That’s exactly the problem I’m talking about and why nothing will ever get done around here.
You and a lot of your friends on the right are more interested in making an ideological point than getting behind a practical solution.
I have no idea how taxes work in NC. I did not post that, and I am not willing to discuss your assertion without research.
I do know that there are states who do a much better job of providing reasonably priced services than WI. Is NC one? No idea…. though at the rate we are going, we’ll have 7% in Milwaukee pretty soon, won’t we.
The tax shell game is why these discussions never go anywhere. I would have to hire a team of expert accountants in order to figure out how much tax I actually pay. State/local sales taxes, federal/state/local income taxes, federal payroll taxes, all the taxes that are built into the prices we pay, etc. Then add in various deductions I can take, if I remember to take them, and if I don’t have it canceled out by AMT. Don’t forget tax shelters like 401ks and Traditional/Roth IRAs that affect my tax picture.
This confusion allows “reductions” in one type of tax that end up not meaning anything.
I have yet to hear any real argument explaining why the tax code has to be this complicated. The usual argument goes something like “we want people who are established in the community to pay for schools, not renters, etc.”, hence we use property tax. But renters pay property tax! Where do you think the landlord gets the money to pay it?
So Bill, you think that bloodletting occurred because city and county government was being fiscally responsible? I don’t believe that at all. They have relished the high tax revenue for a long time, and that worked for them as long as the economy was going gangbusters. They simply ran out of other peoples money. The turnip has been bled dry and those groups waited until the very last minute to slash their budgets. It was their very high taxing and spending style of mismanagement that brought those furloughs and service cuts, and even then they went kicking and screaming.
If they had done those things proactively, say two years ago, then I’d say you had a point. Cutting spending when you are completely out of money is hardly anything to crow about.
Family Guy, I had a modest goal in my remarks. I had no intention of a complete analysis of the budget processes. I only wanted to challenge the factual basis of your statement. And now you changed the subject. …whatever
I did not change the subject, nor did I ignore that issue. I simply think that cutting your budget when you have no alternatives was a finger in the dyke moment, and nothing more…. in fact, they DID consider massive new taxes in the midst of a serious recession.
You claim I ignored the facts, I am saying that I don’t think your version of the budget process is relevant to the fact that those entities over tax us.
whatever
As far as I’m concerned this debate is strictly academic. I’m retired and living on a pension and income from investments. Guess what? My 2009 income is down while my state and local taxes (and fees) are up. That’s the bottom line for me. I have to do with less while state taxing authorities nickel and dime me into fewer meals out, fewer baseball games, and fewer optional purchases. It’s not serious, not yet, but my monthly budget is tighter than it was a year ago.
Family Guy, I’m the wrong person to make you happy. You need to do that for yourself. You want cuts and when you get them you are still unhappy – might I say like some controlling child? I’m looking for you to admit there were cuts, after DENYING there were any cuts. Then we can proceed.
Back to your mistake – It still appears to be your strong suit:
“The real problem is that the supporters of more government for every problem do not EVER consider reducing government spending”
In 2006, the City of Milwaukee budget increased by 9.9%.
In 2007 by 2%
In 2008 by 4.1%
In 2009 by 9.7%
for a cumulative increase of 28% in 4 years.
I did not see the adopted 2010 numbers online yet, but the proposed budget made only a 2.4% increase. Is a 2.4% increase now considered a cut?
Tax per $1000 of value went from 8.09 to 8.90…. another cut?
Now, that was the proposed budget and I’ll have to wait to see how the adopted budget settled out, but if those are cuts, then I would like to request a similar cut to my pay… which did not go up at all for next year.
So, when you show me cuts, then we can discuss them.
Furloughs. Did they happen or not? If not (in your mind only), I guess we cannot discuss them. If they did or are happening, reducing expenses for the County, they we can discuss them? I’m trying to get on the same page with you but we have to share the same facts.
Are you applauding furloughs? Furloughs are not some brave fiscal responsibility technique. They are a symptom of fiscal irresponsibility (or, sometimes, a symptom of political games prior to budget passage). You’re acting like the administrators enacting the furloughs were doing so in order to save the tax payers money. That is laughable. They’re doing so because government was too big for its revenues.
The private sector equivalent of a furlough is a small company running out of cash and unable to make payroll. That is a cash flow management problem, not a bold move by the executive to cut costs.
If anything, your rapping about furloughs makes me wonder if the people calling for more cuts are right. If government can’t make payroll, then they either need to drop the bottom line (cut outlays) or raise the bottom line (increase taxation).
Ugh… I meant raise the top line…
Applauding furloughs? well, only for those who had to take them. It seems some folks here in the discussion find no cut worthwhile, no matter how small or how large, because they imagine yet another cut that was not done. This is no discussion; it’s a waste of time trying to get a single fact we can talk about.
Q: When is a net increase a cut?
A: When a liberal is trying to make a point.
The property tax has got to be the most immoral tax on earth.
How can a vital essential to life–particularly in cold northern climates–be considered taxable when food and some clothing is not?
The logic of taxing the home or primary domicile is one of ‘they got you by the balls’ and the homeowner has no option NOT to pay, otherwise he faces a cabal of armed storm troopers bent on murdering him if he resists and chooses to protect his home for him and his family.
In effect, the property tax criminalizes low incomes and creates legalized slavery.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
["Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness]
It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims.
["The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion,'" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]
The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved.
["This Is John Galt Speaking," Atlas Shrugged]
The above statements form the foundation of a free nation. Without property rights, there IS no freedom.
The property tax is partly based on stale, Marxist class-envy politics. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were so eager to destroy the successful upper and middle-class “bourgeoisie.” Ever since the passage of the 16th Amendment, which granted the federal government the power to directly confiscate our income — our property — we can own nothing to which the government cannot also lay claim, at least in part. If there is a valid argument justifying taxes levied on voluntary transactions, there is absolutely no justification for a tax that is nothing less than State-sponsored theft. Though I would be incarcerated — and rightly so — for walking next door and taking money out of my neighbor’s wallet without his permission, the government makes this very act routine.
The property tax is immoral and oppressive and deprives citizens of their necessities of warmth and shelter.
It is with these facts that I propose that no law enforcement agent take part in the aiding and abetting of theft of homes from people who owe no voluntary mortgage, but who may be unable, due to the expanding greed of local government, to pay the extortionist and confiscatory taxes. No moral law enforcement officer should obey an order to remove an otherwise moral and law-abiding family from their rightfully owned home for inability to pay property taxes. This should be a fundamental part of the Oath Keeper’s pledge. Property and security in one’s home is a FUNDAMENTAL American right.