Property taxes

[pmbug]

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

The Supreme Court just accepted a property tax case that could change how every American owns land.

Case 26-179. Filed August 5th. Accepted 5 days later.

The real question is whether any competent forum exists to challenge how your property is valued in the first place.

Here is the architecture. The appraisal district sets your value. The review board can only adjust the number on your house. It cannot rule on whether the valuation method itself is lawful.

If you try to take it to court, they tell you to go back to the review board. The board cannot fix the method. The courts will not hear the method.

Your rights exist on paper. They cannot be enforced in operation.

A state cannot preserve the appearance of rights while designing procedures so that no tribunal can ever adjudicate or enforce them.

If this structure stands in property tax, it can be copied into every other area where rights pass through administrative tribunals with limited power.

This affects every property owner in every state.

That's why this case reaches further than any single tax bill.

 

[Bottom Feeder]

I ain't gonna hold my breath…

 

[Casey Jones]

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.

 

[Joe King]

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.

 

[Casey Jones]

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.

 

[Joe King]

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.

 

[pmbug]

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.

 

[Casey Jones]

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.

 

[Viking]

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.

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.

 

[Casey Jones]

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.

Well...that's state-constitution guarantees. Which are not the same as "rights."

This bears consideration. A government charter (Federal and states' constitutions) does not give us rights. Nature and Nature's God, bestow Natural Rights of Man.

The Constitution, and state charters, gain legitimacy by RECOGNIZING those rights, and articulating when specific behaviors and properties are essential to protecting those rights (Keep and Bear Arms) but they are not rights because another man said they are and wrote it down.

Now, if the Right to Life were denied by government for 250 years, and then suddenly by court rulings, recognized as a right...you couldn't say that your right to life now existed. It either was there or not; and in any event, a government refused to recognize it. As most Feudal and tyrannical governments in history have not.

But saying it's now a right because a court said it's a right, shows it is NOT a right recognized by this society and government; only that it's politically expedient to suddenly elevate the importance of life.

See the difference?

 

[Viking]

 

[Lancers32]

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.

It's only a thing now because the taxes are insanely high now. In a relatively low tax state my property taxes are up over 60% in 10 years most of it coming after the latest assessment.

 

[Joe King]

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.

There still has to be a way for legal disputes to be settled and for laws to be tested.

For better or worse, that's what the courts are for.

 

[Casey Jones]

There still has to be a way for legal disputes to be settled and for laws to be tested.

For better or worse, that's what the courts are for.

What do rational people do, when kourts ignore obvious evidence, logic, common sense, and plainly-written explanations BY the authors of the charter document?

That is, when the Kourt is itself rogue?...do we all fall in lockstep behind the revolutionaries in black robes?

 

[Casey Jones]

It's only a thing now because the taxes are insanely high now. In a relatively low tax state my property taxes are up over 60% in 10 years most of it coming after the latest assessment.

That's what legislative redress is for. California's Prop. 13 did exactly that; and it's one of the few things the Gollum State got right.

It's NOT a matter involving Constitutional Law or fundamental rights.

 

[Voodoo]

Don't you love the gaslighting... a modest uptick ... 50% lol. These Pikers gonna get what they deserve

 

[Voodoo]

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

I think ANYONE who goes to protest your taxes has an easy win (if they don't just railroad you). ALL of these assessors use proprietary software that does all "the math". The dummy assessors, who are licensed I think in all states, but if they are licensed they are technically doing the appraisals. If they don't know how the software calculates the values then you win. Or, as in another video but RealEstateMindset, the idiot for the County admitted that they don't allow any "As-Is" sales into the data. Well that's also BS and biases every valuation up. As-is typically just means its in below average condition.

 

[Joe King]

I think ANYONE who goes to protest your taxes has an easy win (if they don't just railroad you). ALL of these assessors use proprietary software that does all "the math". The dummy assessors, who are licensed I think in all states, but if they are licensed they are technically doing the appraisals. If they don't know how the software calculates the values then you win. Or, as in another video but RealEstateMindset, the idiot for the County admitted that they don't allow any "As-Is" sales into the data. Well that's also BS and biases every valuation up. As-is typically just means its in below average condition.

That's why the appraisal needs to be legally considered an offer to buy.

That'd fix over valuations quick.

 

[Voodoo]

Well, actually that would lead to serious corruption and theft. Think about it.... get a few people involved and have the assessor over-assess something an investor bought. Boom the taxpayers buy it for way over its value making the investors rich. Ya, no.