Property taxes are unconstitutional

If true, that does sound suspicious, but without knowing where 'here' is there is no way to explain it. It would be interesting to see a png or jpg of the bill with all personal information redacted. Perhaps then an explanation could be obtained.

 

I dont know if its a local thing but my understanding is that property taxes go to the schools. Although i get town and county so it could be both school and roads bridges ect ect.

Side note. I hate when people say i dont have any kids in school. You had free public school available and now your paying for it. Also why would you not want to pay for schools? Do you really want to live in an area of uneducated teens and twenty year olds? Thats just asking for a higher crime rate. And guess who they are gonna steal from...

 

Property taxes are usually a local tax, and can be used for schools, police/fire protection, as well as other local infrastructure funding needs. The tax bill being referred to should indicate what property is being taxed, by whom, and at what millage rate being assessed on the value of the property. The registered owner of the property should be the only one receiving a bill. More information would be needed to fully understand and/or explain what is happening.

In the past, having jointly owned some taxable property, a single tax bill was received containing the names of both owners of the single piece of property being taxed.

 

just now owned my own property so i have yet to get the first property tax bill. maybe i will be back when that comes in the mail.

 

If you bought this year you will pay taxes next year, the seller should have paid this years. At least that is the norm everywhere I've bought a house.

 

Taxes are supposed to be voluntary, in a constitutional sense. Except where congress has constitutional authority. School taxes are local county taxes, or in my case, there is a school district. Local and school district taxes are voted into place by the local people. You would have to go to the local library and read what legal language was passed into law; wherefore, you will learn where your responsibility stands. If you have a $50 tax on each county resident, each resident, regardless if they have children or not, or own a home or not, you will have to cough up the cash.

 

Voluntary in the sense that if you own no taxable property nor earn any taxable income you are not held liable for paying property or income taxes.

 

This is one reason I love FL. I live in a nice area and my property tax is very low considering the lifestyle. And it dropped 30% when I homesteaded the property. No personal property tax on cars, boats, etc. No income tax.

 

:smilielol5::rofl: Bwaah ha ha ha!

 

Ok lets party! Anarchists I got yer 6!

So before I commence to ripping certain posts to shreds here is some food for thought during the most prosperous time of any country previous to the industrial age..

​

Allodial lands are the absolute property of their owner and not subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. Allodial title is therefore the opposite of feudal land tenure.

so lets start from the beginning, how did taxes become todays infliction?:devil:

 

You already don't like me because we disagree on firearms, and this was posted directly after my post. Was this directed toward me?

If so, I'd like to know of your charitable endeavors by age 31. Because I'm sure I have you beat. Having a heart is great, phenomenal even. Having a bleeding heart is obnoxious.

 

Against their allodial property?

 

I just proved that the lands on this continent were in fact intended to be allodial with no higher interest.

You just claimed they government has a higher "standing" than allodial.

Your claim is the antithesis to allodial.

I would add to your claim in that they also take away your shelter (home) if you do not pay the lord [property] taxes. (exactly like england under the king)

I claim that in law (since they skirted around it) this is not a feudal nation, however in "fact" it is because the results of the standing laws are exactly the same in each case.

Euphemisms only change the labels not the facts.

Now, if you want to impress me first show (in law) how you think it is allodial when they have the self granted authority to take it all away?

Next show how eminent domain is constitutional, and likewise the "police state" in the US which with one narrow exception is not constitutional either.

and finally since this government is by consent show me where they get their jurisdiction to enforce their policies, over you without an agreement.

beyond lip service ok? everyone comes out here and gives these matters lip service. I already proved "beyond lip service" that all the lands are allodial and that there is no higher interest and that is the same the same with the rest of the states with not too much research they too can be dug up, though I think my proof should be sufficient for any reasonable person.

If there is a higher interest, then we need to explain why the crown and other aristocraticly owned properties are not subject to the same law? and in our case the government.

and 1783 did not end it btw, the king clarified the merely agreements with the colonies to create their own political system as long as they were willing to pay the bills which was fine until they passed the 13th to keep the brits out of office and they had to come back and burn the white house down.

 

Meagain;

You will have to explain this to me. You have presented "An Act concerning lands" that looks like it pertains to one of the States, I'm not quite clear what this document is or to what it pertains. Please explain.

You want to engage me in a debate about law and you do not understand what I posted? You arent serious are you?

Next underneath that you have some text from some other source. This text seems to be saying that whatever land they are talking about is allodial as to enjoyment and alienation. I see nothing about absolute ownership being granted to or taken away from a government. Please explain.

yes that is from a law dictionary of the same era, however allodial means the same thing throughout history and allodial IS absolute ownership. I am already getting bored.

No I didn't, the various Constitutions of the States and Federal government do that, I just posted what they say.


See above.

IBID

To what law are you referring? Are you saying that the various Constitutions (States' and Federal) have set up Feudalism in the U.S.?

Of course, they even use the same words LOL

I don't think I said anything was allodial except for a few limited exceptions. I don't see any purely allodial land in the U.S. I could be wrong.


You dont think that is a problem? Simply toss the law out the window? If you dont see it what happened to it? Where did it go? Is that not the challenge I posted?

Are you talking about England now? That would be correct in England. I am talking about America. In America its all allodial (or supposed to be).

Furthermore above you said you did not know what it was, now you are saying you dont see any "purely allodial", [as in england] however like water its either pure h2o or its not water, it is something impure but not water.

An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature. Stanton v Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839). "The original meaning of a perpetuity is an inalienable, indestructible interest.” Bovier’s Law Dictionary, Volume III, p. 2570 (1914). The King had such a title inland. As such, during the classical feudalistic period of Common-Law England, the King answered to no one concerning the land. Allodial titles, being held by sovereigns, and being full and complete titles, allowed the King of England to own and control the entire country in the form of one large estate belonging to the Crown.

Allodial estates owned by individuals exercising full and complete ownership, on the other band, existed only to a limited extent in the County of Kent. [ENGLAND]



I already quoted the Constitution: The Constitution allows Eminent domain, the Fifth Amendment states that just compensation must be given.
The constitution says you have freedom of speech too, however if you yell fire in a theater when there is none they will take you to jail. So where is the validity of your argument beyond the idealistic? You brought no substance to the table what so ever.

otherwise sure in its broadest idealistic sense, now be more specific.

eminent domain btw is not necessarily the same as a taking under the 5th though it is portrayed as a taking under the 5th

It's in the States and Federal Constitutions. The law doesn't have to be agreeable to everyone in the country. Laws that you do not agree with are still legal and can legally be enforced.

So then you claim to have the right to stomp on my rights lawfully is that it?

Can you show me any of this in a State or Federal Constitution? Sometimes I'm not too reasonable, so please dig up some examples for me, if it's not to much trouble. Where do any of them declare that taxes or eminent domain are not legal?

It appears you have your law backwards. the state being chartered requires positive law to act and that is by enumeration. men and women do not.

the crown owns its lands as allodial property

We have no Crown or aristocracy in the U.S., so I can't answer that. As far as the Government, it is the Government, it is ruled by the Constitution, so you will have to show me where eminent domain or taxes are prohibited by the Constitution.

we have a government, are you saying that the monarchy did not create one huge state precisely like the united states did?

It is not ruled by the constitution, if it were you would not be put in jail for yelling fire in a theater, it is ruled by something else do you know that that is?

I have no idea what this means, I though the 13th Amendment had something to do with ending slavery not keeping Englishmen out of U.S. offices.

After the british came back all pissed off and burned down the white house and kicked our asses around the block because the 13th amendment of the constitution rejected anyone with nobility! The irony is that every president we have had has british blood lines barring only one and its not obama!

Seriously I couldnt make this level of debauchery up if I tried! LOL

​

that literally wiped out anyone with brit blood lines from holding office in the us, and again that is only one example, just like the allodial Ihave no intention of digging up every state when I only need one to make the point.

Im telling ya, you cant make this shit up! Not in your wildest imagination! LOL