Property/Residence Tax is an Expense on Life

Property based tax is like a statement that the ownership of lands and landed property is a privilege that could be revoked; that the owner is like a lessee. A true owner must have irrevocable possession of his property; which means that ownership could only change hands by voluntary transfer (includes bank foreclosures) or death. And certainly never by seizure by government for nonpayment of a residence or land-use based tax.

To pay taxes from profits/income as a result of profits/income is a natural duty; indeed, the only natural tax responsibility. Paying taxes as a result of ownership of property is an imposed duty reminiscent of feudalism, and, in an interesting way, speaks of socialism.

Taxes on profits is an expense on business; taxes for ownership of property is an expense on life.

Retirees and those above sixty should never be required to pay any council/land-use/residence taxes for their property.

This is a step towards ending the practice entirely. End the practice entirely.

Footnote:
Incomplete thoughts

The Smoking Bushfire

The estimated annual burning of the millions of tiny leaves on lips of like number amounts to something of a bushfire with similar environmental impact.

In perspective, let’s say 10 million cigarettes get smoked, burned, in, say, China, daily.  That would in a year be 3.65 billion cigarette sticks, hence, many stubs for the streets.
That’s a lot. How would it stack up?

We could make a conical hill of stubs that is about 20 meters high with a base radius of 18 meters (approx. 1000 square meters). The Smoking Landfill.

How big a bonfire would those cigarettes make on aggregate?

Imagine about three times that for the hill, thus a volume of 22000 square meters would get burned. That’s going to bushfire dimensions, with the associated environmental impact spread in time and space.

22000 square meters is the size of a rectangular tank measuring 100 meters long (think Olympics 100 meter dash), 100 meters wide, and 2.2 metres high (picture Michael Jordan’s height plus about 20 centimeters).

PS
That’s just China, and we think we underestimated the number of cigarettes smoked there per year. We also get a sense of the size of the business; from the farms, through the producers, to the mouths of users. It’s quite some momentum to go against in order to eliminate the consumption—if that is an ideal to seek. There are noted health reasons for this ideal.

Taxation is a noted means to discourage/reduce consumption while lining up the governments pockets to at least support medical remediation for the effects of smoking on citizens. Environmental remediation for the effects of cigarette smoke, or any smoke for that matter, is currently hypothetical.

If the EU is as serious about the climate and environment as they appear to be, should they do something about cigarettes also. Should it still be managed/endured, or eliminated. How can consumption be effectively significantly consistently reduced?
Charge environment tax on cigarettes? What could this achieve?

(Stub/Cigarette diameter assumed to be one centimeter. Stub length assumed to be one inch, i.e., 2.54 centimeters and burned length estimated as three times the stub length.
I think that ten million is a reasonable minimum estimate for the number of cigarettes smoked per day in China; assuming that number, less than one percent of the a publicised 1.3 billion population, smoke one cigarette a day.)

Taxation Comes by Nature

The root of taxation is as one view of the origin of the soul:
Like the soul emerged from the union of spirit and body, to facilitate the operation of the spirit in the living body as a person, taxation emerged from the formation of community to facilitate the living and operation of a community.

Your country needs you
  Or maybe just your money
There is natural reason to give her some cash
Only one by force
As a result of profits from the land

Tax is a characteristic of community. It is natural to it so that it is contrary to community, even potentially a threat to it, when contributions due are omitted.

That sounds hard
Tax collectors are
What if you don’t have
Then you don’t have to pay

Agreement to coexistence is implicit in community—forced or otherwise. (Read The Plight of Citizenship.) Some come into it; many are born into it. You agreed to pay—by presence. But only justly on the monies made from the land.

What’s my country again
It’s where I pay my taxes
Or where my profits come from
I am a world citizen afterall
But home is where I hang my heart

Percentages don’t respect pain …

Giving 10 percent of the amount appears fair, at least arithmetically, but what about emotionally?

Giving 1 dollar of the 10 you have makes little difference. Easy sacrifice to make.
Giving 10 dollars of the 100 you have makes still a little difference.
Giving 100 dollars of the 1000 you have may start to touch you a little. I mean, you could do something with the 100.

Now, giving 1000 of your10000 bucks may start to really test your happiness to give. Right?
Giving 10000 of the 100000 Greenbacks you’ve saved over 10 years? This likely has visibly come from your emotional bank account.
Let’s say it’s a100000 of your cool 1000000 USD? That is a drain, but I’ll live.
And1000000 of my 10000000 dollars? Hell, do I need to do this?

Imagine where the rates were higher than 10 %. Yes, …, but you live with it. It’s the system.

It’s thus fair to us rich folks (and in the proverbial 1%) for us to pay less in % than the nominal tax rate. The sacrifice is emotionally bigger for the rich. So when Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, He was saying that the price you pay is higher when you have (or feel you have) too much to lose by letting Christ and letting go; when you might feel too rich with your wealth to be meek.

The heavier one is, the bigger a fall would be. Or the heavier is your submission.

While wealth demands, in addition to the care of it’s maintenance, utility, should we near torment the rich with heavy demands? How could this be fair especially if the tax rate is higher for them. What might it say of the rest of the people?

Finally,

To tithe or give: people would always have the choice.
To tax: the government, thieves maybe, and sellers … whoever they are, would feel that they have the prerogative to demand of you an arbitrary percentage of your income despite any pains.