You’re freaking me out man. Those neighbours of yours who you wouldn’t mind seeing die, are paying taxes just like you are and for the same reasons - the government forces them to.
I sounds to me like you need to either find more lucrative work or find a less expensive place to live.
Mark, I completely agree that you’re being screwed by the state. This is an insane system that drives people from their homes using confiscatory property taxes. However, I would hate to see you sacrifice yourself to make a point to a government full of bureaucrats who couldn’t care less. Perhaps you should take a realistic look at selling your house and moving to a lower tax state. I know that will be difficult and expensive, but it may be your only alternative unless you can increase your earnings.
By the way, I was looking at the links in your sig and I noticed you do video work. To whom do you market your services? The reason I ask is that a friend of mine here in Michigan has a fairly successful business making videos for attorneys. He videotapes depositions and also does a lot of work for personal injury attorneys. Perhaps this would be a niche market for you?
My situation is not what you’re expecting: a saleable house and an easy, straightforward move. On the contrary, this place was built in a storm, so to speak, without permits, and doesn’t even have a C of O. There are environmental issues with the land, it has also several in ground fuel tanks, the cost of removing each to be born by the seller before a sale can legally take place under CT law. In short, no one would buy the property once the environmental issues were disclosed (as they must be, else I would be liable for possibly hundreds of thousands in environmental cleanup). The land issues are a long story. The taxing division of our local government is not familiar with these issues to the extent that would make them realize the parcel has little to no commercial appeal.
I don’t mean to ‘freak people out’ with my remarks. For the longest time, I held the position that blowing one’self and one’s land up during a military inrush a la Waco Texas would be unethical if it caused harm to nearby neighbors. I gave this angle much thought in recent months, and realized that the neighors are complicit in prumulgating the tax abuse, because their payments are a form of consent to the law. In fact, their consent to the law helps to impose on MY rights, so in an indirect way, the neighbors are imposing on my right to exist too. If someone can provide a solid Objectivist argument as to why I might be wrong in this conclusion, I anxiously await to hear from you. It was a bold and uncomfortable conclusion to reach, which ran counter to my emotional beliefs.
I love my home and my location. Recently, I drove down south to visit friends (who had escaped the northeast) and relatives. My trip had me spending time in Raleigh NC, then west to Huntersville, NC, then south to Columbia SC, and finally on through GA to Florida, where I spent some time in a small town called Inverness. I visited Orlando on the way to Disney, at the request of my wife and four our daughter’s sake.
While I was down there, I didn’t like the air quality or the fact that all the housing was practically on top of eachother. I did like the roads in NC though. Built to avoid backups. But for your money you got a shoddily constructed house that would blow down easily in a CAT3 hurricane, flimsey walls, weak roof structures and a lot of recycled materials, all thrown up in 3-4 days. My friend was having a Pulte Home built. It went from a slab to a finished house from exterior looks, during the four days I was there. But the neighbor’s house wall is 8’ from theirs. Since I have an uncontrollable perverse need for ultra loud music and extreme amounts of bass, I must not have any neighbors within 1/2-3/4 mile. My current lot is isolated in the woods. We have great water from a pure aquifer here, and our situation has protected us from lightning strikes for the past 40 years, being in a slight crater at the top of a mountain.
We built the house without any outside help, so I’m familiar with all the systems, the water, septic, plumbing, electrical, structural, etc. The house also has great sentimental value, even though it is an eyesore. in short, it’s pretty well adapted to my needs, even if it is a leaky, rough unfinished structure in need of major roof repairs. On top of that, I have a LOT of stuff to move, if I were to move. Sure, I’d move, if I could move to a better place in a similar geological setting.
Answering the last question:
I do video production for anyone that is willing to hire me. I specialize in recording orchestras where the absolute finest audio is required. I do some graphics animation, and arrange some music, but I usually leave the composition work to others. I have excellent tools to to my work with. That’s where all my investment goes. I tend to over-reinvest in my business tools, since video/audio is my passion in life. Of course I keep most of this quiet and don’t advertize in local media. The equipment and software is easily worth several times the house!
My relative in Inverness FL is in the real estate business. He tells me there is a market for virtual tours of high end real estate and suggested I market my services there. Legal depositions sound completely foreign to me. What does it entail?
Mark, If you don’t mind my asking… are you saying that the cost to fix the environmental issues are such that the land + house are worth ZERO (perhaps negative) on the market? Essentially, your land and property are worth nothing to any new owner. They have the obvious use-value to you, but no market value to anyone else? Is that true?
Is there any way to break the lot to get a saleable chunk that does not have environmental issues?
On the business side, you mention you don’t advertise locally. Does your business come mostly through word-of-mouth?
The lot is only .51 acre and we are now 2+ acre zoned. I am surrounded by 14 acres of swamp (wetland protected by local and fed law).
Yes, if the property sold for $20K and the federal environmental cleanup fees were $250k, I would be liable for $230K and be homeless at the same time.
So it’s better to either abandon or just stay put. I’ve taken the latter choice, since my income is decreasing steadily each year.
All of my work comes by word of mouth.
My day job is radio broadcast engineering. I got that set of clients because a station broker heard and likes the technical quality of a pirate station I ran in the 1990s. We met, I showed him schematics of my designs and he said I was more than qualified to do engineering for commercial stations. So he lined me up with some clients and I’ve been doing that. Not my favorite work and the commutes are hell–often out of state.
I’ve been the official videographer for a non profit cultural dance group for about four years now. I’ve recently produced a wedding DVD. I’ve also done music concerts with large orchestras and a lot of microphones. All of these jobs are by word of mouth.
I am good at this stuff, but the market is extremely hard to break into. I’ve been doing a lot of freebies just to get my name out there. Four years of free video work is enough though.
The local paper just published my latest editorial about this reval (the most recent after the 2001 reval). Interested parties may read it in the online edition of the paper’s web site if out of the local area:
Legal depositions sound completely foreign to me. What does it entail?
The depositions themselves can last anywhere from about an hour to several 8 hour days. It all depends on the complexity of the case and the issues on which the deponent is being questioned. My friend markets his services to attorneys through state and local legal publications. Most states have a “Bar Journal” or a “Legal News” or some similar type of magazine/paper for attorneys. Essentially what you are doing is creating an audio/video record of the deposition. This is still largely done by stenographers, but some attorneys prefer video recording of depositions.
My friend also makes short videos that show a day in the life of an injured plaintiff. These are people who have suffered some sort of (usually catastrophic) injury and are suing for medical expenses and/or damages. He is hired by the plaintiff’s attorney to follow the injured person around during a typical day. He adds some narration of the injured person’s daily life and the video is eventually shown to a jury.
I don’t know whether any of this is something you’d enjoy doing. You obviously have some unique skills and I was just trying to think of new areas where you could utilize those skills and get paid for your efforts.
Keep in mind, I’m not a lawyer, but I am a Jew (by descent) 
Did you create the environmental problems on your property? If not, can you sue the previous owner for selling you property without disclosing the issues? Are you sure there’s not some sort of grandfather clause for liability for environmental hazards that existed upon purchase of the property?
Can you incorporate the land and declare bankrupcy? If you found a new home, rather than abandoning your house, could you sell some of the supplies and scrap to local builders or something?
In terms of finding work, you might try marketing your services to smaller businesses that can’t afford in house technicians. I know freelance web designers who possess huge market shares of local businesses because the businesses would never need a web designer of their own, but need the product that one would supply.
You might also try talking to local advertising companies that might be interested in having a videographer off their payroll so that they wouldn’t pay as much tax or need to provide you with benefits. Remember, if you’re willing to do someone’s job for less than they are, then you have a competitive advantage. Also, if you can handle work from more than one company while still being able to provide companies with the same service as an in house employee would, you represent a win-win situation for all involved. Good luck!
My friend also makes short videos that show a day in the life of an injured plaintiff. These are people who have suffered some sort of (usually catastrophic) injury and are suing for medical expenses and/or damages. He is hired by the plaintiff’s attorney to follow the injured person around during a typical day. He adds some narration of the injured person’s daily life and the video is eventually shown to a jury.
I was completely unaware of the scope of this kind of legal videography work. While it may be uninteresting, it certainly sounds like something that may provide some steady work–that is if there is a law requiring and outside, unbiasted party to perform the recording. What’s to stop lawyers from using their own home video camera at a deposition?
Strange:
"The error returned was:
Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 15 seconds before replying or posting a new topic"
Anyway, on to the point:
Keep in mind, I’m not a lawyer, but I am a Jew (by descent)
Did you create the environmental problems on your property? If not, can you sue the previous owner for selling you property without disclosing the issues? Are you sure there’s not some sort of grandfather clause for liability for environmental hazards that existed upon purchase of the property?
No. The party I inherited it from did.
The law here is that you can not sell a property that has certain types of environmental issues, including:
hazardous materials on site
in ground or buried fuel tanks
I would have to disclose those. The house itself is made of asbestos panels. So even a demolition would be very costly because of the asbestos abatement procedures and the fact that the material would have to be disposed of at a designated hazmat waste location. Environmental disposal fees can be absurd. The back yard was used as a garbage dump for 30+ years. There is trash buried deep into the soil back there and it abuts a pond. I recently got an estimate of $8,000 to remove an in ground oil tank. A renovation company that came to look at my house informed me that it is not legal to sell a structure that contains asbestos.
(Now I have no problem with the asbestos because it’s encased in concrete panels called Transite and is fireproof. My ancestors were wise to the fact that was have forest fires up here on this mountain). The only danger is when you cut it, at which time you need a breather mask. But of course the environmentalists go crazy and treat it like it’s some highly toxic, dangerous substance that will kill people who get to close to it. Absurd.
There’s also the matter of the 16x14 shed that collapsed and is stocked with old electronic gear from the 1920s to 1950s containing oil filled (PCBs) transformers, bottles of chemicals that broke when the building collapsed, etc.
A seller who knowingly fails to disclose the presence of hazardous materials in a property being sold is held liable for cleanup costs and fines.
Some informal estimates indicate that it will probably cost around $250K to raze the property AND clean up the environmental problems. The start by trucking all of the top 4-5’ of soil to a hazmat waste dump. The process can take days and is absurdly expensive.
A case in point: a friend of mine had a broadcast transmitter he recovered from a fire. He kept it in a lean to on his back porch while he rebuilt it. Apparently some capacitors leaked PCB laced oil and it went onto the ground. The guy made the very stupid mistake of calling the EPA to ask what to do about it. They investigated, and, it was like a scene out of E.T., a whole bunch of men in hazmat suits with special equipment invaded his property for a day. They brought in a backoe and dug a 4’ deep hole where the PCBs leaked. The bill for this? $9,000. Now imagine a problem 200 times the area of that and it all starts to come into perspective.
Can you incorporate the land and declare bankrupcy? If you found a new home, rather than abandoning your house, could you sell some of the supplies and scrap to local builders or something?
No. I think the reasons are obvious.
In terms of finding work, you might try marketing your services to smaller businesses that can’t afford in house technicians. I know freelance web designers who possess huge market shares of local businesses because the businesses would never need a web designer of their own, but need the product that one would supply.
You might also try talking to local advertising companies that might be interested in having a videographer off their payroll so that they wouldn’t pay as much tax or need to provide you with benefits. Remember, if you’re willing to do someone’s job for less than they are, then you have a competitive advantage. Also, if you can handle work from more than one company while still being able to provide companies with the same service as an in house employee would, you represent a win-win situation for all involved. Good luck!
I’ve been essentially self employed since 1985 part time, and switched to full time self employment in 1989. Since that time, I have had three business failures. I started out as a typesetter and expanded into color prepress. I enjoyed some tiny success peaking in 1992, when that client decided it was cheaper to buy a bunch of Mac computers and hire college students to lay out the package designs. I had another brief boom in 1994 with a company that made marketing coupon kiosks. They went bankrupt and I was out $6400 in pay a few months later.
Around 1996 or so, my unlicensed FM station was going full-tilt and was developing a nice little audience. That’s when I met a station broker and owner of several small FMs in the New England area. A really nice guy, he was impressed with my technical abilities as observed in the air product of my station, and lined up some real engineering clients at commercial radio stations. That started to pay the bills and in 2003, reached a promising peak. But radio has fallen on tough times, I have been spending more time trying to repair my house and indeed entire summers of 14 hour days demolishing and rebuilding small sections of the house had me unavailable for radio work. So it’s partly my fault. But not entirely. Word has also gotten to me that my fees are at the higher end of the scale and some radio stations don’t want to pay them. There’s another engineer in the area that will work for less and he really doesn’t have a home–he lives with his children up north, commutes down here during the week and stays with a friend during the week to save money. Meanwhile the market is depressed because of these engineers that work for very little. It’s strange too, because you pay $76/hr for an auto mechanic to fix your muffler, $100/hr for a plumber to unclog your sink, but radio engineers with degrees and federal licenses, who are responsible for keeping multimillion dollar operations running smoothly have trouble getting $50/hr.
Only in the past four years have I been able to save a bit and buy video cameras, software and computer hardware to realize a dream career that I had wanted to do for more than 30 years.
I do market to the local industry, but only get the jobs where there’s an insider who can recommend me. Coming from the outside, I get nowhere. To them, I’m just another salesman. And a very uncomfortable one at that. If I can figure out how to get past the outsider syndrome, it might be possible to nail a few jobs.
I did, however, land another ‘volunteer’ video and sound recording job. The largest cathedral in Connecticut is the location. Their music director must have liked my demo DVD of the Danbury Symphony recording that I did last summer because he contacted me asking if I could record the midnight mass and a full orchestral concert that they will be having. Naturally, realizing this would make a hugely impressive portfolio, I accepted the engagement. But one of these days, I need to start doing work for pay!
I was completely unaware of the scope of this kind of legal videography work. While it may be uninteresting, it certainly sounds like something that may provide some steady work–that is if there is a law requiring and outside, unbiasted party to perform the recording. What’s to stop lawyers from using their own home video camera at a deposition?
The lawyers are there in the deposition asking questions so they don’t have the time to screw around with video equipment. On top of that, the transcript or video of the deposition is the official record of that legal proceeding. It is always (in Michigan at least) prepared by an independent stenographer who is usually paid by both sides in the case. I wonder if a way to get into the business might be to ask someone at a stenography service if they do video deps. If you could work for them and get the hang of it, then you could go off on your own. As far as the “victim videos” (for lack of a better name) are concerned, those would just be advertised directly to attorneys through legal publications.
Boy, this last one really rings the violation bell with regard to confiscatory taxes on primary domiciles.
As a person who is still reeling and very upset after Black Friday (that’s when the revaluation notice from our tax assessor arrived in our mailbox) and the fact that our already overvalued property has been increased substantially, … We have none if we are not willing to defend them with as much force as the government would use to violate them.
And why is it that no one is paying attention to this very dire issue, despite the thousands of homes that are stolen from their owners due to ‘back taxes unpaid’?
Pardon me if I seem a bit steamed. I feel as if I’ve been dealt a death sentence by this notice..
First off, let me say this- as a property owner in another part of CT, I “feel your pain.”
One of the problems with the discussion on freedom and property rights is that it can get corrupted into one which compares the concept of property rights under capitalism with the reality of property ownership as it exists today- In America- in a system that really is by no means an ideal form of laissez-faire capitalism.
What I read in your post is the grim reality of owning property in the “mixed system.”
For example, property owners suffer from the valuations foisted upon us by the local governments, in order to collect taxes from us for the sake of others. Such taxation is disproportionate to anyone’s ability to contribute to the government for the sake of the govenment’s protection of our rights. About the only thing that is not unfair about this convoluted system of taxation is that at least we can deduct the cost of real estate taxes from our incomes when it comes time to pay our income taxes to the Federal and State governments.
So what should the property owner’s obligation to the government be under a government whose goal is to protect our rights?
In my opinion, it should be a system upon which we should pay the government to protect our rights according to each individual’s ability to pay.
That has nothing to do with property evaluation.
… it should be a system upon which we should pay the government to protect our rights according to each individual’s ability to pay.
“Ability”? Care to explain what that means? Total weath? Market value of the property being taxed? Income? what?
“Ability”? Care to explain what that means? Total weath? Market value of the property being taxed? Income? what?
In a capitalist system we authorize a government to have a monopoly on protecting our rights, i.e. a police force to enforce laws which protect our rights, an armed force to protect us from invasion from predatory nations, and a court system to resolve disputes and to try criminals.
It is, in my opinion, appropriate to expect that we have to pay the government for such services.
Now I already stated that such payment should have nothing to do with the property evaluation, so your challenge of “Market value of the property being taxed?” is totally inappropriate.
So if , say, such contributions to government are expected on a per diem basis, as I stated, they should be based on one’s ability to pay.
What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the “burden” is equally shared by others.
Perhaps the only question I would have is whether such contributions should be voluntary.
The Capitalism.org page states that “Most people (not all) would voluntarily give 5 or 10% of their income to support a government that protects rights; practically no one would give 50% to 90% of their income to support a mixed economy/welfare state, which is why the government uses lethal force to physcially take it away from you.”
My position- we authorize and impose upon government to protect our rights. Why shouldn’t government assess a cost to us all for such protection?
Now I already stated that such payment should have nothing to do with the property evaluation, so your challenge of “Market value of the property being taxed?” is totally inappropriate.
I was just clarifying your idea of “evaluation” by doing so.
The issue is not of whether one must pay for government of not.
Your scheme says that income should be used as a measure for “ability”. I do not see any reason why that is better than using wealth as a measure.
So if , say, such contributions to government are expected on a per diem basis, as I stated, they should be based on one’s ability to pay.
What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the “burden” is equally shared by others.
Yes, you might find this thread helpful:
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2479
Also, I have to disagree with your contention that “contributions” to funding government should be based on one’s ability to pay. That’s one of the central tenets of Marxism.
The issue then becomes “By what tangible standard should government collect what is due for its task of protecting our rights?”
The standard of “wealth” does indeed relate to ability to pay, as the wealthier are more able to pay… more money… to the government for such protection.
Yet the standard of “income” is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business.
So Gags, I disagree with you.
I also disagree that contributions to government based upon one’s ability to pay is an element of Marxism. Please furnish tangible proof that one does not have any obligation to pay the government for protecting our rights, under capitalism or any other system other than Marxism.
… the standard of “income” is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business. (emphasis mine)
You call that an argument? Tone it down; I trust, you’re among friends here.
Would you say that if Bill Gates retired and kept his billions in cash his ability to pay would be less tangible than the guy who works at McDonald’s and continues to get an income. Surely you would not.
As for Marxism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
You have stated that ability should be a factor, but you have not said why.
You call that an argument?
ABSOLUTELY!
We are in business to make a profit, and we earn an income.
Wealth can be obtained either by earning an income or by inheritance- or both. Wealth is cumulative.
In business, income can vary from year to year. Thus the amount of contribution to government we businessmen can afford is going to vary.
What if a businessman loses money in a particular year? What is his obligation to government at that point?
That is why I made that statement.
Would you say that if Bill Gates retired and kept his billions in cash his ability to pay would be less tangible than the guy who works at McDonald’s and continues to get an income. Surely you would not.
I am speaking from the point of view of those who run businesses. I regret not having clarified that.
My opinion- it is the businessman who is the main source of products and services, who is the main source of income.
The employee merely contributes to the production of revenue in such business, and from such revenue draws his wage, so why is it that he/she should be liable for contributions to the government when the business he works for does so?
The issue then becomes “By what tangible standard should government collect what is due for its task of protecting our rights?”
The standard of “wealth” does indeed relate to ability to pay, as the wealthier are more able to pay… more money… to the government for such protection.
I provided a link for a thread that discusses a number of moral methods for raising money to fund government. You really should read it. It would help your thinking on this issue.
Yet the standard of “income” is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business.
I’m not sure what running a business has to do with any of this. By the way, I’ve run several and I still don’t see the connection.
So Gags, I disagree with you.
I also disagree that contributions to government based upon one’s ability to pay is an element of Marxism. Please furnish tangible proof that one does not have any obligation to pay the government for protecting our rights, under capitalism or any other system other than Marxism.
A system based solely on the ability to pay rests on the Marxist idea “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs…” There are other more rational ways to fund government than taking from the rich through an income tax, which seems to be what you are proposing.
I am speaking from the point of view of those who run businesses. I regret not having clarified that.
My opinion- it is the businessman who is the main source of products and services, who is the main source of income.
The employee merely contributes to the production of revenue in such business, and from such revenue draws his wage, so why is it that he/she should be liable for contributions to the government when the business he works for does so?
So you would only tax the income of business owners? Would you also tax corporate profits? If so, I hope you realize that business don’t pay taxes. The people who pay business taxes are the customers – in the form of higher prices.
What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the “burden” is equally shared by others.
Donald Trump’s assets take a lot more military power to protect than mine. I don’t think that a flat percentage of income is necessarily logical. Large companies and ultra-wealthy individuals have more assets to protect, and thus should have more incentive to contribute to military/court funds. The burden of the costs of government shouldn’t be equal; ideally, the burden would be proportionate to what it takes to protect the assets and life of each individual. While a flat tax might approach this ideal on face value, I’m not convinced that it is correct.
My position- we authorize and impose upon government to protect our rights. Why shouldn’t government assess a cost to us all for such protection?
The government is supposed to protect rights, including property rights. Forcible taxation contradicts such an organization’s purpose.