Eliminate property taxes
Debate Rounds (3)
If an individual inherits, wins or purchases a property, they should be allowed to own it without fear of having a government take over due to lack of cash in their pockets to pay what the government itself demands.
We have heard many times of people who inherit large pieces of land or houses who are forced to sell because of their personal income not being enough to cover property taxes. This seems largely unfair, a government overreach, and a defiance to the very definition of owning.
income taxes are the fruit of your labor, it's personal. and taxing labor creates disincentives to work, and be productive to society.
taxing property helps curtail people owning so much. it allows more people to own property. there's only so much of it out there, so to help regulate it, they make it more based on supply and demand.
i might be for homeowner's exemptions, to help disincentivise excessive property ownership, but not eliminating property taxes entirely.
- There is indeed so much property out there, but as demand rises, so will the prices, resulting in a natural self-regulating/self-taxing industry. There's no need for government taxing if regulation is the argument.
Please, could you argue against my "taxing non-existing money" point?
as a practical matter, that might be the case. it is so rare that some who is dead ### broke would own much property. the example you gave about inheriting property sounds like someone inheriting something large and expensive. so it's not like they can't own something within their own league. and at the poorest cheapest property out there, it's more affordable. if it is hard to pay, you could just get a roommate and they could provide the means to pay it. aside from maybe high end markets like NYC, cheap real estate would be affordable like that. NYC isn't something that everyone should be able or should aspire to. it is a business capital, and meant for those sorts of purposes. if you can't afford it, you shouldn't live there.
i think i've got your last two points in this last paragraph.
also, again, the most you've shown is that we should have homestead exemptions, that doesn't mean we should eliminate property taxes altogether.
- "If you can't afford it, you shouldn't live there". Again, if it is my property, I should be allowed to live there. If I can't afford other normal expenses, that is my problem, not the government to dictate.
Like others mentioned in the comments: Property taxes are pretty much the government saying "I see you own some land, you now owe us money or it now becomes our land.".
and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land that one has to pay, but for excessive properties, it should only be a reduction. if you can't afford to own an excessively large property, tough luck. this all creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible.
it shouldn't be required to have a roomate, but when it starts to get excessive, you need to start figuring somehting else out if you can't afford it.
bottom line though is we should not get rid of the property tax, it should be our main focus, aside from possible homestead exemptions.
(next in line is sales tax for those who make more income, perhaps. see pros and cons of 'fair tax', but also note the disadvantags that would entail needing to keep poor people from having to pay. and, last in line should be income tax.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct throughout the debate. I commend both for practicing proper conduct. S & G - Pro. Con needs to start capitalizing her sentences. This is a basic grammatical rule and one that should be maintained in debates that have spelling & grammar as a factor in voting. For this, Pro is awarded points. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to truly present any cases against property tax aside from it being unnecessary over-reach by the government. Con showed in her rebuttals how such taxes are necessary and also provided counter-solutions. To this end, Pro conceded some points as well as Con, so I must throw that out when determining arguments. All in all, Con was able to rebut the main contentions of Pro which left him unable to convince me that Property taxes should be eliminated. For this, Con takes arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources for this debate. Good effort from both sides. I'd enjoy seeing Pro try this again with more refined contentions.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.