• KulunkelBoom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    They dangle the carrot of “home ownership” as if anyone ever owns a home that can be taken away for not paying taxes.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      TBH, property taxes could be a necessary evil, like only imposing them above a certain number of owned homes, to curb some companies buying up homes en masse to control the rent market, but I have a weird feeling they might not be the ones paying these taxes.

      • see_i_did@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Lots of countries have property taxes that are more reasonable because they focus on city services like trash pickup and stuff. The problem is property taxes are tied to education in the US and in many states the higher the property taxes the better the schools, the more exclusive the neighborhood, etc.

      • Septapus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Agreed with # of homes owned as well as square footage/meters. A mansion should be hit hard by taxes.

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t think taxes negate ownership.

      If you rent you need permission for every modification, every pet, even for something like planting a garden.

      Ownership can be conditional; you can own a domain, but if you don’t pay the renewal fee it can be taken away; you can own a car, but if you drive it without paying your registration it can be impounded; you can own a business, but if you don’t pay your license renewal it can be revoked.

      Owning something doesn’t mean it can never be taken away or that you don’t need to do anything to keep it.

      • DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        your interpretation of the concept of ownership practically renders the word meaningless.

        to most people it does in fact mean that it can’t normally be taken away, even though such a thing might be physically or legally possible.

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You could take the interpretation of “ownership” to many ridiculous conclusions, from “all ownership is theft” to “nothing is owned” to “all governent is crime” to “all taxation is theft” etc…

          From a practical standpoint, “ownership” is an arbitrary threshold of exclusivity that is generally respected by society under appropriate conditions. Where that threshold and what the conditions are will vary by the type of property and general social sensibilities.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s not meaningless, it’s about who controls a thing. What makes you think ownership must not have conditions?

          • sfu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            If you own something, and someone takes it from you, its called theft. If its not theft when they take it from you, then you didn’t own it.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              That would mean all taxes are theft.

              You’re welcome to have that perspective, but it doesn’t map well onto any modern legal framework for ownership.