 Author
|
Topic: How can we abolish NH property tax? (Read 12133 times)
|
|
MaineShark
|
Even in arbitration, which would require both parties either to volunteer... or have to be enforced by the government... the arbitrator isn't going to be inexpensive. I think you would need to raise court costs, thus making arbitration less expensive... or some other means... to get people to choose that path. Did you even bother to go to the link I posted? $300, total (ie, $150/party). So you sue me. Why would I be willing to put out $150 rather than just sit back? The arbitrator doesn't have any authority without the force of government. Because you're certain that you're right, and expect to recover the $150, plus damages for your wasted time, when the arbitrator rules in your favor? Or, for that matter, I could pay the whole $300 - it's certainly less than court costs. In either case, if you don't present your case, you'll lose by default, and it will go on your credit as a bad debt, at which point it's going to impact your ability to get loans, credit cards, jobs, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
TJames
|
John Edward Mercier; Can you list things that Molyneux hasn't covered to the satisfaction of the dumb voter? (They are very stupid you know.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rank420
|
Travis no one is dumb, I think they are more unaware or uneducated or some other "un" word  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TJames
|
Well dumb means unable to speak and they can speak alright. So they are unintelligent.
When I started voting on libertarian principles I almost always vote in minority. Bond issues always pass in Maine, as if our rich will pay for it. Voter A may like issue 1 but not 2. Voter B may like issue 2 but not 1. Moron C likes them both and doesn't even know what a state budget is. It is as if the only thing I am doing by voting is saving them from themselves, a favor.
I want to put a sign in my yard (Why should I pay for something I voted against? That is not a deal.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rank420
|
they act dumb though we should be neighbors |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Even in arbitration, which would require both parties either to volunteer... or have to be enforced by the government... the arbitrator isn't going to be inexpensive. I think you would need to raise court costs, thus making arbitration less expensive... or some other means... to get people to choose that path. Did you even bother to go to the link I posted? $300, total (ie, $150/party). So you sue me. Why would I be willing to put out $150 rather than just sit back? The arbitrator doesn't have any authority without the force of government. Because you're certain that you're right, and expect to recover the $150, plus damages for your wasted time, when the arbitrator rules in your favor? Or, for that matter, I could pay the whole $300 - it's certainly less than court costs. In either case, if you don't present your case, you'll lose by default, and it will go on your credit as a bad debt, at which point it's going to impact your ability to get loans, credit cards, jobs, etc. And if I know that I am wrong? As for going on the credit record... we are back to government. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
John Edward Mercier; Can you list things that Molyneux hasn't covered to the satisfaction of the dumb voter? (They are very stupid you know.)
Most things. Because it largely has to do with 'establishment'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TJames
|
John Edward Mercier; Can you list things that Molyneux hasn't covered to the satisfaction of the dumb voter? (They are very stupid you know.)
Most things. Because it largely has to do with 'establishment'. Good point. That has me thinking of Alex Jones. Molyneux has a better impression. Okay everyone. I think I need a list of well know libertarian philosophers that point out ways the free-market can replace government. I can do it but my fan base is only like ten people and some are just kids I'm related to. Who do we know who has charm and popularity and dose this for a living, but isn't so popular that people will just dismiss them. Ron Paul is bad at public speaking and is too popular, Paul is also trying to get elected. I still need to read Rothbard but I think he may have covered this a lot, but he is dead and may be too advanced. Tom Woods may have a little bit on this, but just a little. John Stossel has talked about this but he has helped opposing groups of libertarians as well, and he is on FOX and has a flock of haters. How about I link some of the Molyneux clips? I was assuming everyone here saw them or went to look for them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
You missed my point. Humans tend to support what they know, and reject new concepts. We also tend to fantasize about utopia.
'Establishment' prevents 'large' changes from occurring rapidly - the large changes actually being several small changes leading to acceptance.
In the property tax... the Statewide Property Tax - which is collected by the municipality but not rendered to the State; it might take the changing of minds in a set of 200,000 voters. While changing the various parts contributing to the County Property Tax would be a set of voters roughly numbering 20,000. But the majority of the Combined Property Tax is municipal (mine is around 85% municipal), but only has a set of around 200 voters determining its level.
To make that point for a newer system (or just a small change of the older system), we need to show correlation. Since we have a County Tax on our Combined Property Tax Bill (mine is around 4%, or $1.24 per mil)... we would need to determine how much is to the Courts and what that paid for. If we argued savings on the judge's salary, then came to find out that the judge's salary is not connected to the property tax... maybe its only maintenance of the building and grounds. Our argument for a change looks flawed. After that changing of voters' mindset becomes harder. We've essentially 'poisoned the well'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
And if I know that I am wrong? Then it would be a good opportunity to attempt to negotiate a settlement. As for going on the credit record... we are back to government. Um, no. Credit reporting is done by private companies. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
If I'm wrong... I probably never intended to negotiate a settlement.
And though credit agencies are private, I can't just simply zing your credit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
10stateswithnh
|
As far as why people would submit to arbitration, in a totally noncoercive dispute resolution system, if they know they're wrong - two things. First, the hearing will be held with or without them. If they don't go, they have no chance to plead their case and get a "lighter sentence" (said in quotes because it's not really a sentence, that's not the right word for it). Even if you did what you know to be wrong, you might have had a reason for thinking it was ok at the time, and won't get to tell that side of things if you don't go.
Secondly, losing in arbitration gives you a bad reputation and leads to ostracism, the reputation would be slightly better if you admitted your mistake and apologized, so over time admitting mistakes, apologizing and making restitution would actually happen more, would be more incentivized. Basically, social pressure would lead to people submitting to arbitration, as I've understood the concepts. However, people who violated the rights of others just out of selfishness or carelessness, would have bad ratings, and people would avoid them.
However, the reputation rating, or contract rating, is not the same as credit rating. There would have to be a means to prevent one person from lying to give you a bad report because they don't like you, but basically any individual who dealt with you in a financial transaction, or even in nonmonetary transactions, WOULD be able to affect your rating. And certainly an arbitrated decision against you would be a BIG black mark against you. Most people would assume you didn't go because you were guilty, meaning, if you are in fact guilty (I see your point) it would not help the reputation much to go, but it would say, he takes responsibility for and admits his mistakes, so I believe there would be a slightly less negative score from having gone. Anyone else have a thought on this?
On the original thread topic, it seems like ending property taxes will only come AFTER we majorly cut government spending and privatize on all levels, from state and county, down to city and town. Otherwise, it would just encourage the people who WANT government to keep spending tons to come up with new taxes which are less accountable to the people than a property tax set at the city or town level is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
As far as why people would submit to arbitration, in a totally noncoercive dispute resolution system, if they know they're wrong - two things. First, the hearing will be held with or without them. If they don't go, they have no chance to plead their case and get a "lighter sentence" (said in quotes because it's not really a sentence, that's not the right word for it). Even if you did what you know to be wrong, you might have had a reason for thinking it was ok at the time, and won't get to tell that side of things if you don't go.
Secondly, losing in arbitration gives you a bad reputation and leads to ostracism, the reputation would be slightly better if you admitted your mistake and apologized, so over time admitting mistakes, apologizing and making restitution would actually happen more, would be more incentivized. Basically, social pressure would lead to people submitting to arbitration, as I've understood the concepts. However, people who violated the rights of others just out of selfishness or carelessness, would have bad ratings, and people would avoid them. For that matter, I could just go steal your car and sell it at auction to recover the debt, for that matter, and no one would fault me for doing so. If you car was worth $50k and you owed me $10k, I might sell it at auction for $20k to get a quick sale, keep the $10k you owed me, and deliver the remaining $10k to you. Now you have $10k, but lost a $50k car. However, the reputation rating, or contract rating, is not the same as credit rating. There would have to be a means to prevent one person from lying to give you a bad report because they don't like you, but basically any individual who dealt with you in a financial transaction, or even in nonmonetary transactions, WOULD be able to affect your rating. And certainly an arbitrated decision against you would be a BIG black mark against you. Most people would assume you didn't go because you were guilty, meaning, if you are in fact guilty (I see your point) it would not help the reputation much to go, but it would say, he takes responsibility for and admits his mistakes, so I believe there would be a slightly less negative score from having gone. Anyone else have a thought on this? If I had a credit/reputation company, I wouldn't accept unsubstantiated reports from just anyone. In order for my company to accept your report, I'd want some sort of documentation that it was legit. I'd probably rank reports based upon the level of substantiation. Someone researching your status could then choose to filter the score based upon what level of substantiation they wanted. Someone who was very picky (ie, wants to avoid false positive results) might want to know about everything negative that's been said about you, whereas someone who wanted to be exceedingly fair to you might only want to know about the "A-rated" claims against you (ie, because they want to avoid false negative results). Depending upon the risk someone was undertaking by doing business with you, they would have varying standards for what they'd want to know, and how much weight they'd give it. If there's an arbitration setting run by a reputable arbitrator, where you are given the opportunity to present your case, and you fail to prevail, that sort of thing is going to be weighted heavily against you, and almost anyone will give it credence. Arbitrators, of course, will need to have stellar ratings in order for their determinations to be accepted. Judges, having a monopoly, can be ridiculously-corrupt before they are removed, and rarely face any sort of repercussions for their actions. An arbitrator cannot afford to any negative reputation at all, and therefore will have to stay squeaky-clean and issue determinations based upon justice, not personal considerations. An arbitrator who loses that might still have an exemplary reputation for normal purposes, but even the slightest proven impropriety will end his career as an arbitrator, immediately, as no rating company would ever again highly-rate one of his determinations, so there'd be no reason for anyone to purchase his services - what they're paying for is his reputation, to back up what he determines. On the original thread topic, it seems like ending property taxes will only come AFTER we majorly cut government spending and privatize on all levels, from state and county, down to city and town. Otherwise, it would just encourage the people who WANT government to keep spending tons to come up with new taxes which are less accountable to the people than a property tax set at the city or town level is. Indeed. Property taxes will be the last to go. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
You could cut property taxes by just getting a few hundred people to realize that they don't need to supply something to the schools or muncipal services at a local level. Though I've never seen it happen.
Even when people have come up with a means to attain services cheaper, the voters seem determined to expend the monies in other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
You could cut property taxes by just getting a few hundred people to realize that they don't need to supply something to the schools or muncipal services at a local level. Though I've never seen it happen.
Even when people have come up with a means to attain services cheaper, the voters seem determined to expend the monies in other areas. You should look around more. We just killed several spending measures, here, last year. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
