Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
However, your continuing to pay for your land every year in taxes is exactly the reasoning behind it. It's NOT your land. You're renting it from the government.
|
As I'm completely out of my league as I'm not a tax attorney, real estate agent, etc. I am reticent to respond at the risk of looking like a fool.
Oh well....
You're not renting it from the government. You're paying tax on property, which is used to fund local services, and it's that distinction and only that distinction that forces local governments to pay market value for your property rather than pay nothing at all. If you were, in fact, renting your land from the government, what's to stop them from simply kicking you off it whenever they deem fit for whatever reason? Because it is your property and under your ownership, which means that local governments have to demonstrate a viable reason for seizing your property using eminent domain so they can 'improve' it.
Quote:
|
The title? That's for things ON the land. The land itself? Not yours. So, that's how the government justifies all this, and legally they have every right to. We all agree to it every time we purchase "real estate." The biggest crime is the fact that there are no real options to purchase land otherwise.
|
Again, it's my understanding that there are two types of property, real and personal. Generally speaking, real property consists of the land and every permanent improvement on that land, which is why, for lack of better phrasing, 'house tax' and 'property tax' are usually one and the same even though homeowners generally have seperate titles. Even if there's nothing on the property you still get a title, which from what I've seen, describes acreage, location, etc...
Personal property is generally property that isn't real property. I assume that's why you pay a personal property tax (cars, boats, etc.) seperate from all other taxes.
Again, all this is based on my finite knowledge of the tax system and how it works, so, there's a very good chance that I'm blowing smoke up my own ass.
The argument in my first post was poor. I will be the first to admit it as my mind was elsewhere. So, let me redact....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by What I should've said....
Exactly and exactly. If the government/state wants your property they should have to do what everyone else has to do and submit a bid to the real estate agent. To say that anyone can come along and force me to sell to them the land I've legally purchased is theft and coercion regardless of what their names are or what they want to do with it.
|
There, that better reflects what I'm saying. While the government may reserve the right and be in accordance with the law in seizing land under the guise of 'eminent domain,' in my opinion, the whole practice of is nothing short of theft and coercion.