.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
.
Property tax has existed since the founding. The Founders saw it as a necessary evil to fund their local government.
What's changed is a bunch of renters and other transients were given the vote, and kept voting for bigger government necessitating larger tax bills. Once the rent gets too high, they move somewhere else and stick the landowners with the bill.
If it was only landowners voting, the taxes and the size of government would be much smaller.
It's not that simple.
In 1796 seven of the 15 states levied uniform capitation taxes. 12 taxed some or all livestock. Land was taxed in a variety of ways, but only 4 states taxed the mass of property by valuation. No state constitution required that taxation be by value or required that rates on all kinds of property be uniform.
In 1818, Illinois adopted the first uniformity clause. Missouri followed in 1820, and in 1834 Tennessee replaced a provision requiring that land be taxed at a uniform amount per acre with a provision that land be taxed according to its value (ad valorem). By the end of the century thirty-three states had included uniformity clauses in new constitutions or had amended old ones to include the requirement that all property be taxed equally by value.
You've completely missed the boat on this one. This is a symptom of yet another problem. However, it is not the cause of the cancer. If you are Dr. John Lott, then you should be familiar with John Lott and Lawrence Kenny in - "Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?", who reveal that the size and scope of government dramatically increased immediately after women got the right to vote. If you look at the graph, the size of government looks like a piper airplane taking off. It is still climbing every year to the present and will continue to do so.
It's not so much "renters and transients" as you say. The welfare State is directly attributed to women having the power to vote. Woe to me for saying that. It is the taboo subject of today. However, females follow different behavioral characteristics than males do for survival. One the surface, it sounds all too obvious, but it is the "why" that is always left unanswered. (1) Survival strategy for females are different than in males. Heuristically, they do not unleash the "fight or flight" instinct as do males. Rather, studies show the female survival strategy is quite different and they follow a-- "tend and befriend" (Myer-Levy) behavioral construct. This explains female inclination to the welfare state.
It also explains, the age-old harem and gynaeceum and its success even to this day. People may scoff at this, but no-fault divorce and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the nationwide government funding of Battered Women Shelters has made the legal status of women to be that of children under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. As a note, no-fault divorce started in the former Soviet Union.
Parens Patriae in Black's Law Dictionary means literally, “parent of the country.” And there is a long history to this.
In Blair Adams' "Preface" he writes:
Parens Patriae refers traditionally to the role of STATE as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. This essentially is the definition of a "Ward of the State." Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), women have been placed under this legal doctrine that the courts follow to the letter. In placing women under this title, they have motioned the court to dissolve their marriage license (government permission), thus trading her husband's protection for that of the government's protection. This is a form of gynaecuem or harem, in which the king or sultan provides protection and a safe haven. History tells us women show the same behavioral trait even after their country is over-run and conquered by a foreign enemy. Under stress, women will prefer the survival strategy of "tend-and-befriend" instead of "fight-or-flight".
We really do live in matrix and the evil controlling it is far more than most people can comprehend.
I stand corrected.
This is true, and you're right that it is taboo. There should only be one vote per household.