Property taxes

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).

I have no idea if this is going to go anywhere, but I found it interesting:

 
How are they going to make the argument that this is a FEDERAL issue?

No matter your stance on taxes, it's states and counties that levy and collect real-estate taxes.
 
How are they going to make the argument that this is a FEDERAL issue?

No matter your stance on taxes, it's states and counties that levy and collect real-estate taxes.
The States and Counties still can't violate your Rights.
 
The States and Counties still can't violate your Rights.
So, from the time of definition of Natural Rights of Man, through to to 250 years of this nation...untaxed real-estate was NOT a right, but alluva-sudden it IS.

The only logic to that, would be to recast the definition of "rights" to whatever the Kourts order that they are, when they order it.

Basically, making the Kourts into Divinities.

And/or making "rights" subservient to politics - pull, pressure, the holding of office.
 
Seeing that they took the case, we will find out.

They could go either way on it, but once they do the matter will be settled.


They can only hear cases that someone chose to spend the time and resources on to get it that far through the legal process.

There are lots of legal questions that have never made it that far.
 
Casey - the case is not about whether or not "untaxed real-estate is a right". It's arguing a very specific issue with respect to how real estate taxes are assessed. If the method is eventually found to be invalid, that doesn't necessarily mean that government(s) can't develop a new structure that is valid.
 
They could go either way on it, but once they do the matter will be settled.
Ah, yes, the Imperial Kourt model. A relative of the Divine Right of Kings, and Papal Infallibility.

I dislike the model - AS the model, as I tried to show. I don't accept something as a "right" just because someone wearing a ritual robe says it is. The Reniasaince philosophers, articulating Natural Law, were far more persuasive.

As to it being settled...how'd Roe-Vee-Wade work out in terms of being settled forever? For that matter, Dred Scott. And Jim Crow...Separate-Butt-Equal.

Laws, edicts, orders, that move out of the legislative and into Imperial Edict, likewise move resistance from campaign attacks to bombings, gunfire, riots, and @$$@$$ination.

However it goes, it's not a win. It's not a win because the Kourt has no business arguing it.
 
Probably in other states too.

Minnesota Constitution Art. I, § 15. Lands allodial; void agricultural leases​


Sec. 15. All lands within the state are allodial and feudal tenures of every description with all their incidents are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural lands for a longer period than 21 years reserving rent or service of any kind shall be void.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…