Connect with us

Everything

Why the government owns everything

Published

on

I want to ask you a question. Do you have the right to own property in this country? I’m not talking about a cell phone, clothing, and so forth. What I am mean is, do you have the right to own land?

The reason I ask this is that most people believe that we do own property in this country. When you buy a home, you not only pay for the house, but you pay for the land. Therefore, if you pay for it, you must own it, right? The answer is no, unfortunately, and here’s why.

First, let’s begin with a typical home purchase. Most people don’t have enough money to pay for a home outright. They usually get a mortgage from a bank and pay it off over 30 years. During that time if you stop paying your mortgage the bank will eventually foreclose on the property and take it away.

Why do they have that right? They have that right because they still own it until the day you fulfill the contract and pay off the mortgage. The day after you paid the mortgage off the bank has no right or authority to foreclose. They have no ownership or interest in the property.

At this point, most people would now say they own property, but most people are wrong. The reason they are wrong is you will never stop paying. You might have stopped paying the bank, but you never stop paying the government.

You see, when you pay property tax what you are doing is paying the government to lease the land from them. Like the bank, if you stop paying the mortgage they will foreclose on you. In the same way, you stop paying your property tax the government will come and seize your property and auction it off.

Why does the government have the right to do this? The reason is that you don’t own the land. All you did was spend a lot of money to acquire the right in order to lease the land from the government. The government is the sovereign landowner of every single piece of land property in America.

For this reason alone, is why I abhor property tax above every other tax. I understand a sales tax or an income tax. I understand the need for the government to collect money to provide services. I’m okay with that. But I’m not okay with is paying taxes on the same thing over and over again.

If you want to add a one-time tax like a stamp duty, that is reasonable and something we can argue over what the percentage should be. But you can’t tell me that it is moral and right for the government to come and seize a person’s property because they can’t afford to pay their property tax. Kick them out of their home and keep most if not all of the value of the property.

For instance, according to Kelly Phillips Erb from Forbes, in 2011 in Pennsylvania, a widow with three children named Eileen Battisti lost her home because in 2008 she did not pay interest of $6.30 for being late eight days on her property tax payment. By 2011, with fees and cost that 2008 property tax bill ballooned to $255.84. Therefore, the county seized and sold her property for nearly $120,000. She was lucky in the sense that she was entitled to $108,039 after taxes and costs were deducted from the sale. But we don’t know what the value of the home was, what happens if the house was worth $250,000? The new owner got the deal of the century. The government got their money and change. The only person that got hurt was Eileen Battisti and her fatherless children and all for $6.30.

In some counties around the country, you are not even entitled to any money back after a sale. You could own a million dollar home, and the government can sell it for $500,000 and keep that entire amount.

You see just how immoral and wrong property tax is. It deprives you of your rights to own property. It also fundamentally changes the structure of who is sovereign in this great country of ours. I thought, “We The People” were the sovereign in this country. I thought were supposed to be a People with a Government, instead of a Government with a People.

As conservatives, we fight to conserve principles that have been proven to be the best for man and the human condition. Unfortunately, our Founding Fathers didn’t get everything right. They were imperfect like us. Even though they had property taxes doesn’t mean they were right in doing so.

In days of our Founding Fathers, they would not have been called Conservatives. They were Liberals or known today as Classical Liberals. Their ideas and philosophies were brilliant, and that is why we call ourselves conservatives because we wish to conserve these principles.

On property taxes, we cannot be conservatives. We must be Classical Liberals and fight to enlighten the American people on the evils of property tax, and if we are to be a country of the people, by the people, and for the people then we must fight to take our property back from the government and once and for all abolish property taxes in this country.

Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Michelle

    July 31, 2017 at 5:37 am

    In West Virginia, the county doesn’t even have to notify you that your property is being sold on the courthouse steps. I have been talking about this subject for a long time and consider this the biggest issue gutting the American Dream, today.

    • Konstantinos Roditis

      July 31, 2017 at 7:42 am

      Michelle, this is one of the biggest issues of our day and whenever I have spoken to people about the fact that you don’t own land and you lease the land in the form of property tax from the government, they all say, you’re right I never thought about it that way. Even progressives agreed with me. Property tax drives the elderly and the poor to greater despair and is killing the American Dream.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report