"Mine?" A Deeper Look at the Realities of Home Ownership, Taxes and Government...
When I was a teenager and young adult, it was eternally being "imprinted" on me that the ideal in life — in terms of building personal success — was to become a home owner.
You didn't want to rent, because that meant you were "throwing your hard-earned cash at someone else." Being a home owner made you "respectable." It meant you "owned your own piece of dirt." It meant you were a "stable" person, and committed to being "part of a community."
Plus, it was "a great investment!"
This is our view... but is it really "ours?"
In Search of Stability
I must confess, that I have never looked at home ownership from the perspective of it being an INVESTMENT.
Well, maybe not exactly, but that "investment" wasn't monetary to me, it was an investment in my own stability of life.
Nasturtium
My primary reason for not wanting to rent was to avoid the situation of having to make an involuntary move because the landlord decides to sell the property, or they want to use it themselves, or (this happened to me, once) even that they want to renovate the property so they can charge higher rent.
Suddenly you get a letter from the landlord, letting you know you have 30-60-90 days (or whatever) to find another place to live. I hate feeling uprooted and shuffled about... perhaps an eternal "hangover" from my childhood, where we were constantly on the move.
For me, home ownership meant that I was the one who got to "dictate the terms" about my life; specifically about my living circumstances. Hereunder... valuing the fact that I would not be at risk of suddenly having to make a forced move.
But IS Homeownership Really "That?"
Technically speaking, if you buy a piece of land and the sticks and stones on it — outright — it would make the most sense that you "have" that property, as yours.
Except, of course, you don't.
Honeysuckle
At least, if you live here in the US of A, you are encumbered by this thing known as "property tax."
Which basically amounts to "a tax on people who choose to own something outright, rather than just borrow it from a bank — who ACTUALLY owns the property."
And here in the state of Washington, they (meaning local government) can come and take "your" house away from you, if you don't pay aforesaid property taxes in a timely fashion.
So is that really a good deal? Moreover... does something even constitute true "ownership" if some "authority" can come and take it away from you. Sure, there has to be "due process" (also known as "tax foreclosure proceedings") before "they" can do that, but fact remains that you have to "pay the piper" in order to assure ongoing "ownership" and possession.
Which doesn't look a hell of a lot different from renting, from where I am sitting. Except for the fact that you can't call your "landlord" to come fix a broken pipe or a leaky roof — at their expense — when you're a "homeowner."
Something seems not quite right about that.
Which, I guess, is why so many "alt thinking" anarchists, Libertarians and "Freedomists" are part of a community like this one.
VOLUNTARY Taxes?
Of course, many are quick to point out that what we think of as "civilization" would quickly descend into some form of "feudal/tribal chaos" absent some sort of centralized system/body (funded by "something") because a large number of the people walking around on this planet are simply NOT — by any figment of anyone's imagination — what we might consider "Good and well-intentioned actors."
Red Geranium
Of course, some may like aforesaid "feudal/tribal chaos," but I am sure as shyte not one of them! A lot of people do seem to prefer a "Wild Wild West" lifestyle to something more... genteel. I'm not here to judge that... it's just not my thing.
Which brings me to thinking about this notion of whether or not you can have such a thing as Voluntary Taxation that is not what many think of as "theft?" If you knowingly agree to something, presumably that removes it from the realm of theft.
I mean, I'd much rather drive on a smooth and well-maintained road than a set of dirt ruts through the woods. And I'd like to be able to pick up the phone and call someone if my house is on fire, rather than have to organize a "bucket brigade" of neighbors. Things definitely worth paying an annual "tax" for.
But immediately, there are "problems," aren't there?
Because now we are talking about a "structure" with "someone" in charge... and compensation. And the moment you involve compensation for something that other bugaboo known as Human GREED gets into the picture.
My point here being that many are willing to dismiss government as "evil" and yet they can offer few functional alternatives. There are a lot of ideas that look good "on paper" but they fall apart the moment you include actual human beings in the equation. Because a lot of human beings are... basically... shitty.
Memories of the UK
Some of these issues bring to mind my years of living in the UK, several decades ago.
In many cases, the idea of "buying a property" was — technically speaking — described as a "99-year leasehold," a tradition traceable back to the 11th century.
Red autumn leaf
Only a "freeholder" actually owned land and property — and collected taxes — while everyone else was a "leaseholder," no matter how "permanent" their living situation might seem. In some slightly twisted way, it would almost seem like local municipalities who collect the taxes have become the de-facto freeholders of modern times; we are all "beholden" to them, in some fashion.
Now don't get me wrong: This is really more of an "observational" post designed to explore and shed light, than an angry "railing against the machine" post.
As I mentioned earlier, if we don't have some kind of working system, we fall into uncivilized tribalism/feudalism.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go do something income producing so I can afford to maintain my desire for "stability!"
Thanks for reading!
How about YOU? Are you a "home owner?" What does "home OWNER-ship" suggest to you? Is it really "ownership" if it can be taken away from you by law? Or do you agree to "the law" by implication, when you agree to this form of "ownership?" Leave a comment-- share your experiences-- be part of the conversation!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Created at 190209 13:23 PST
0879
I have lived in villages in the Himalayas where people owned their own houses and land. There were no property taxes. Life was reasonably civilized and I did not observe that the inhabitants had "fallen" into uncivilized tribalism/feudalism. I am sure there are other places in the world like that. No, they did not have paved roads. But living walking distance from their fields and having no cars, they did not need them. Why are you so pessimistic about your and our neighbors' ability to aspire to something similar?
To be honest, I think my pessimism — or maybe it's cynicism — has grown since living in the US. When I came to this country as a Danish exchange student, I was far more idealistic and trusting in a world in which the vast majority of people were "positive actors," even though I am — by nature — fairly reclusive.
My opinions are probably also colored by having been on the "receiving end" of rather more deception, manipulation and even fraud than I care to think about. Why does this happen, one might ask? Perhaps because I give the benefit of the doubt to
too manythe wrong people.It's a good question, and I appreciate you asking... and I need to check myself a bit, here.
Yes it probably needs to begin by choosing to live in a small community with like minded people. Once ostentatious consumption does not equate status, and you control the education of your children locally, you are probably most of the way there. Taxes tend to benefit some, even many, but penalize others. So it seems optimal that no tax is valid without 100% consensus. Better the project/amenity,upgrade be left undone then to have it imposed on anyone against their will. Most people in a small community will make sacrifices if they are convinced that it is for the general good and not to benefit some at the expense of others.
Smaller does seem to equate "better" in many ways. We moved from a metro area of almost 2 million (Austin, TX) to our small city of some 9,500 and in many ways things we didn't feel "right" about have gone away. Some of the "tax issues" we are seeing here now are related to that pattern...
The "curious" thing, though, is that a lot of people seek a "better way," but tend to bring their problems with them from the places they left. We see a great influx of people from California here, trying to escape a certain way of life. And all is well.. until 3-4 years pass and they start "missing" their big city amenities, thereby changing the very character of the place they were drawn to, in the first place.
Yes, I took some of my "needs" with me to the Himalayas way back then. I am sure that I contributed to a dis-harmonizing of the local lifestyle. And I wasn't even fro California :-)
I think the benefits of owning my home far outweigh being a renter. I stopped renting at 20 yrs old and have owned a couple homes for over the last 17 years. My husband and I have had this exact conversation many of times. There isn't much we can do about it. Freedom isn't free and Freedom isn't actually freedom but the illusion of freedom and we are the peasants who let our governments just run right over us. Ironically ending up in the same taxation system that the colonists left Britain to avoid in the first place.
I am also a real estate agent and I do agree with "location, location, location," being why a property is valued more near a lake or in certain almost rare environments. I do hate that the common man is now locked out of ever owning one of these rare locations unless he makes an incredibly awful amount of money or inherits it. But when the population numbers keep increasing everything becomes less tangible.
What kills me is that before they try to help homeowners keep their properties in a time of need, they force them out and let the house deteriorate and become a shit hole before selling it to some flipper for what they could have ended up with from the original mortgagee if they had given them a break on their payments for a while. We punish good people and reward the actual criminals by bailing out the banks and not punishing the embezzlers.
I agree with you.
Also,not one banker has ever gone to prison. They just throw fake notes at the government.
I guess the real question is not of taxation but rather representation. Do you feel represented by the amount of taxes you pay. I'd venture to guess the answer is not only no but hell no. Here in South Texas the taxes are huge and so also are the pot holes not to mention if you happen to need a city or county servant for some assistance on a given matter the answer is also a no, or we'll get back to you on that after our next budget meeting.
Perhaps it it tine to exercise our mandate as citizens and rise up and over throw our government and demand representation and reform cause it has become evident the current system is broken and the status quo is just..static. Nothing is going to change until the sleeping giant wakes the frak up
Well, you're right... representation might be lacking in many cases. I sometimes wonder why the school taxes are sky high in an area that mostly has retirees and a student body that shrinks every year. Seems backwards.
Anything with government involved seems to be bass ackwards. School taxes? What a waste. What I'd give to find even a college graduate that could form a complete sentence without ending it in "you know what I'm saying". It's so sad, kids graduating high school that stand there looking at you funny when faced with a fraction of an inch on a ruler. Bewilderment and glazed eyes is all you get when you try to explain the concept of placing studs 16in on center. Seems all we are teaching our children now is what to think rather than the skills of how to think and it's a damned shame, embarassing.
My husband and I have had that conversation every year when our "real estate taxes" come due. Like you pointed out, you pay the mortgage, the insurance, the upkeep and repairs, and then have to fork over additional money for the privilege of "owning" it. You pour a new concrete for your driveway and the tax assessor comes along and upgrades your assessed value at their discretion. You can appeal the valuation, but good luck with that.
So we pay for:
[source](my photo of my own real estate taxes bill)
And the valuation system varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. The same house we own would have twice at least the taxation if it were located by the lake.
It's somewhat of a mixed bag around here. Our property taxes here tend to be quite high (in terms of cost per $1000 of assessed value) but often the biggest issue we face is official valuations that are "manipulated up" because of budget shortfalls, so they can collect more. We'd be hard pressed to sell our house for its current assessed value.
Washington state also doesn't have a "homestead exemption" like I had when we lived in Texas... which adds to the cost.
Actually, here in the U.S. you hear people say they are homeowners when really the bank owns the home. It does provide some security unless you are late on a payment to the bank and they decide to foreclose.
There is no real security in the world but having your own place whether renting or buying has it perks, privacy.
The good thing in our particular situation is that we do own the property outright... it's not the bank's; even if the property taxes add up to a "small rent payment" if you count the monthly expense. We are also worried about "creeping fees" that are kept off the formal property tax bill: Things like an annual Septic Inspection Fee which suddenly added $300 a year to our living expenses.
The flowers are very beautiful !!
Isn't it winter in Denmark ??? and there is no snow and frost ???
Well, whereas I am from Denmark @irinal, I currently live on the US west coast. Actually it's pretty cold and snowy here, at the moment... the photos are from the summer!
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Ahhhhhh...so many thoughts to reflect on more deeply in this post. I would say the desire for stability might sometimes over overcome the sense of rebellion for paying tax in order to acquire some semblance of that stability. It depends on your individual situation. Here in Canada...and in regards to my personal experiences being beholden to the government for 'ownership' is infinitely better than being tied to the whims of a landlord.
Posted using Partiko Android
Well, real estate taxes are deductible, so there's a bit of freebie in there. Unfortunately with the new tax bill, for people in my lovely state of NJ and other high real-estate tax states (ie wealthy states), they put a cap on this deduction at some pittance. Our governor apparently was able to up it a bit, but sheesh....cannot wait for the current hoodlums in DC to go. (oh woops! not to start a political thrashing on a Saturday night or anything ;0)
the wild west is fiction.
didn't happen
Hollyweird creation.
Yeah, but it's a great narrative to convince people that taxes are a good idea...ooohhhhhh...