Crony capitalism in action; Texas county jacks up property taxes on minorities to build McMansions

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by neo96

 

You have to excuse us we are anarchists.

We don't really get "states". I believe in fair property taxes set by the community and agreed to by the owner.

If you don't pay your property taxes you don't get thrown out for it. You just don't have the community services available to you. (like water,garbage collection,sewage etc).

When own the land you own it. No yearly surcharges.

As I already said I do not believe in property taxes

reply to post by neo96


Why not?


They can help pay for a higher level of living.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by neo96

 

Why not?


They can help pay for a higher level of living.

Because I think a person has the right to own their own land.

Damn.

reply to post by neo96



Its ok I am not forcing to to want volunteered taxes.

You shouldn't have to be forced by violence to pay taxes. Its should be optional in my opinion that all.

You can argue all day long as to whether this is a racist or not, however, the results will speak for themselves. Poor minorities will suffer the consequences. This -- racial gentrification- is built into our system. There is no need to make specific references to race. It's par for the course.

Following the Civil War, abolition of slavery and the Reconstruction Period, there were coordinated efforts between the North and South to devise a way of keeping blacks as a submissive labor force, and one which was confined to a new form of slavery: penal slavery.

Fast forward a century, and following the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the coordinated efforts of the elites or political class resulted in mass incarceration of a disproportionate percentage of poor blacks. Reagan’s “war on drugs” led to a rapid expansion of legislation (while the Reagan administration secretly supported the drug trade in covert operations abroad, such as in Nicaragua, the Iran-Contra Scandal, etc.) that would imprison the mostly black poor population. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of people incarcerated in the United States increased by 300%, from 500,000 to nearly 2 million.

So, more than likely, those who lose their homes through this ginormous tax increase will find room and board in our for profit prison system, or if not that, at the very least, remain a part of a very submissive labor force. Meanwhile billion/trillion dollar corporations pay no taxes whatsoever. In other words, punishing the poor, especially African American poor, is fixed firmly and deeply into the scheme we call a "constitutional republic."

Originally posted by neo96

What the hell does that have to do with a Texas county raising property taxes?

It has a lot to do with it, as I explained.

I know and it is no claim that is a fact the state owns the land which is why they get to create property taxes.

No they don't own it. Does the government own your car because you pay road taxes?

But even if they do, the business on that land is still privately owned. Government owned, or privately owned, they are both BAD. That is what you fail to see. Common worker ownership is the only fair way. Private ownership by private individuals, or by the state, are both exploitation. Only worker ownership gives everyone an equal opportunity to provide for themselves.

Yeah someone isn't acknowledging something here quite a bit state capitalism is ok then those tax increases are OK.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying? Who is saying state-capitalism is OK?

Since the state owns the land always will.

Even IF they do, they do not own the means to produce. Capitalism will always have a state system, it's the state system that allows capitalism. Without the state there is no law to allow people to use their property economically.
Workers would not be coerced to work for a private owner. Workers need the state system to protect them from capitalists.

Capitalism is why we have the state system we do. The ONLY way the state could be demolished is through worker ownership.

Originally posted by seabag


CRONY CAPITALISM

By contrast, whether referred to as cronyism, corporatism, mercantilism, liberal fascism, or venture socialism, crony capitalism is simply the cooperation of government and business. While this cooperation benefits the involved business and politician(s), it generally hurts the politically and corporately unconnected.

And that right there is a major problem in this country and yet I come across many from both sides of the political spectrum that support it. Like, Corporations are people my friend. Let them spend as much as they want, more than any citizen could spend and this is what you get.

They want to be put at head of the line above everyone else, and have their corporate and banking politicians in the government give them a piece of the action.

edit on 10-2-2013 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ANOK

Under capitalism smaller government means less oversight, and more exploitation, not less. Capitalism requires government, it can not work without it. To understand what it would be like without government oversight just look at the industrial revolution in Britain.

I agree with you here to an extent.
I agree we need a government that defends the citizens from the corrupt and scum of the world that exist aboard but also at home, in both high and low places.

As it is now, the Big Government we have serves the Big Corporations and Banks, and our military is not defensive for the citizens, but for those same two entities above.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I am not a democrat.

I don't even think this person saying he's the president is who he is.

He's a bilderberg / CIA shill.

You got that right!
Obama is a Wall Street and MultiNational Corporate Puppet.

All these regulations are not for the defense of the citizens against them, but against the small and medium sized business that cannot compete with them.

Originally posted by neo96


Because I think a person has the right to own their own land.

Damn.

I agree that people should be able to own their on land free and clear.
However, what measures and incentives would you take to ensure the corrupt and greedy don't buy up all the land since there is no cost to them?

Originally posted by jacobe001
I agree with you here to an extent.
I agree we need a government that defends the citizens from the corrupt and scum of the world that exist aboard but also at home, in both high and low places.

We only need government to protect us against capitalism, because without government oversight we would lose all workers rights.

As it is now, the Big Government we have serves the Big Corporations and Banks, and our military is not defensive for the citizens, but for those same two entities above.

Yes it does, because capitalism is the only way for people to gain the economic power to do so. But getting rid of government while maintaining capitalism would not solve that problem, it would make it worse, as there would be no restrictions on what capitalists can do.

The only way we can have a stateless society is with worker ownership. Because capitalism concentrates the means to produce in the hands of fewer and fewer people, giving them the economic power to control the state.
It has been like this since capitalism started in the 1700's. The state/government we have now is a result of capitalism, not the other way around. Bitching about government, or even actually changing government, is not going to work while we still have a system based on making profits.

The power to control comes from economic wealth, economic power that comes from economic inequality. Worker ownership breaks down that inequality. You can't dominate an equal.

reply to post by neo96


I don't think people should have the right to "own" land, because ownership denies use to other people.

It's land ownership that started capitalism in the first place.

During feudalism the 'commoners' were allowed to use land that was not being used by it's "owner". The land owners had the 'inclosure laws' enacted, which allowed them to fence off their land, and deny it's use to the 'commoners'. This forced the commoners to take "jobs" in the mills and factories of the land owners. Land owners exploited the commoners making themselves very wealthy, and from that wealth came our state system, set up by, and for capitalist interests.

Land should be owned in common. Ownership only coming from use, if you put the land to use no one can deny you using it. If you have a plot of land doing nothing, and someone else needs it, then they should have that right to use it. That is freedom. Ownership is not freedom, it is denying others of theirs.

reply to post by ANOK

I don't think people should have the right to "own" land, because ownership denies use to other people.

Wow just Wow.

Do other people pay the mortage loans, and the property taxes on that land?

Hell no they don't therefore they have zero rights to that land.

reply to post by divideandconquer


Yes this country is engineered to be racist by the nwo and is still suffering from that from of social psychosis. But you see the elites are anti-human,neo-monarchist malthusians. They created modern race(they modernized it) tribalism and use it to keep thier vice-like control over our minds. They want people to be racist for the same reason a drug dealer wants people to be strung out on heroine. They become predictable,pliant and manageable. A wet dream for an anti-human new world order control freak.

The elite aren't even racist either(Look at the membership of bilderberg,TLC or CFR).
Race tribalism is a cruel joke on the corporate livestock(us). Racists the punchline to the joke.

Example:

NWO:Look at those poor idiot corporate debt slaves. They are so obsessed with skin pigmentation. Which is good. We have conditioned the unthinking herd to be racist. These savages think that terrorizing non-anglos makes them on our level. The whole reason why we allowed african americans and hispanic americans to exist in our controlled US corporate kingdom is to make you feel important and on the "winning team". You debt slaves fell for it as usual. Just like you fell for the "bailouts".

You keep thinking that while using our fake FIAT currency and paying our carbon taxes and derivitives. Your debt slaves. Pure and simple. Drink ya fluoride.

Your not on our level and you'll never be on our level.
In fact these savages need to be punished. We'll choose Obama to be the herd manager/Emperor over you. You won't like that. We know. You debt slaves need to be put in your place.


But pertaining to property taxes.

Let the community set the price and be agreed on by negotiation by the owner. You don't have to pay the taxes. But then the community does not have to take out your trash or provide you with electricity,water,sewer, free school/college access, etc.

Tit for tat I say.

reply to post by ANOK


Do powerful worker owned business entities have an advantage over the conventional top down corporate model?

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Do powerful worker owned business entities have an advantage over the conventional top down corporate model

Not sure what you mean by powerful, but yes of course they do.

Worker owned means you earn the full fruits of your labour, no surplus value taken by the private owner.

Workers are not subservient to an owner, or boss. Everyone in the company is an owner of the company, and has a say in it's running etc. That empowers workers and motivates them.

Worker owned is community based, providing what is needed by the community.

Workers do not outsource their own jobs, or lay themselves off. Workers won't remove the means to produce when profit isn't made, leaving people in poverty. Capitalism is not based on needs, it is based on who can afford to demand.

The underlying union co-op principle is that this model will result in improved, self-reinforcing, virtuous cycle worker and customer satisfaction through higher accountability, productivity, and efficiency because all workers will have an equal equity stake in the company, will share common goals, and adhere to common principles and practices that broaden the definition of value beyond the “bottom line”.

www.usw.org...

No one would deny that employee ownership is about sharing the financial benefits of company success. Many leaders believe that in the minds of employees it all comes down to cash, either current or deferred. Our data indicates this is not the case. The power of ownership seems to arise from harnessing both the financial and the non-financial aspects of employee ownership. The data summarized here suggests that, at its most effective, ownership gives employees not just a financial reason to perform but a reason to belong.

www.ownershipassociates.com...

“In contrast to a Machiavellian economic system in which the ends justify any means, the union co-op model embraces the idea that both the ends and means are equally important, meaning that treating workers well and with dignity and sustaining communities are just as important as business growth and profitability.”

www.thenation.com...

Essays Toward A Principled Economics

reply to post by ANOK

None coercive taxes(is theft if not fairly agreed to, or negotiated between the community and the owner. Then they enforce the theft by violence and threats if you don't pay what you didn't agree to or negotiate to. That is fake ownership.).

But that is (libertarian) socialist.

Must be evil.

Community owned operated(not government) and controlled? That is (anarcho)communist!

Evil again.

Workers dominating the yields of their own work. That is (anarcho)syndicalist and (libertarian)socialist!

Triple Evil!

By the way if workers owned their own workplace collectively(like stock shares) would they get paid twice every 3 months?

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
None coercive taxes (is theft if not fairly agreed to, or negotiated between the community and the owner. Then they enforce the theft by violence and threats if you don't pay what you didn't agree to or negotiate to. That is fake ownership.).

But that is (libertarian) socialist.

What is libertarian socialist? I'm confused?

It's ridiculous to argue capitalism is not economic private ownership because of taxes. When you start a business you voluntarily accept paying taxes. How do you expect the state to run without taxes? The capitalist economy requires the state, as I explained in another reply. Capitalism is what coerces you to pay taxes, not government. Government is not outside of capitalism, it is required to pay and pay, just like the rest of us.

If you don't want government, and taxes, then you need to also realise that the economy has to change first.

Must be evil.

What must be evil?

Community owned operated(not government) and controlled? That is (anarcho)communist!

Evil again.

Why is that evil? ALL forms of anarchism support workers common ownership. It's not really community ownership, as the means to produce belong to those using them, the workers. Workers are a major part of any community, and worker owned provide for their community.

Workers dominating the yields of their own work. That is (anarcho)syndicalist and (libertarian)socialist!

Triple Evil!

Again all forms of anarchism supports worker ownership, anarchists are either socialists or communists and the two terms mean the same thing.

Syndicalism is worker ownership through worker controlled unions. Libertarian socialism is just another word for anarchism in general. It was used by anarchists because of the negative connotations of the term Anarchy.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with the evil stuff?

By the way if workers owned their own workplace collectively (like stock shares) would they get paid twice every 3 months?

Worker ownership is not really stock shares. Workers simply have free access to the means to produce, to provide for their needs, it's not based on stock and shares, or profit making. Workers can collectivize/cooperate, to run a large company, or they can work by themselves. Workers are free to decide for themselves, not coerced to work because they have no other choice.

I don't understand your question, why would they be paid every three months? Please be more specific, because I can't read your mind to be able to understand you.

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists....

Libertarian Socialism

Syndicalism refers to the practice of organising workers into unions to fight for their interests. Originally, the term comes from the French work for Trade Unionism (Syndiclisme), but in English the term specifically refers to rank-and-file unionism....

Syndicalism - an introduction

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

Socialists Do Stand for Equality

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
I agree, but I'm not entirely convinced the elites are not racist. Maybe I missed it, because I can't say I pay all that much attention.. but I don't see much intermixing of the races at the very top. I think they include blacks because they need an elite class of African Americans to mislead African Americans as they are doing right now with Obama. As Glenn Ford calls them, the Black Misleadership class.

Black poverty up, Black wealth down, Black murders hit all time highs. But none of that matters because we have a Black President. Don't you blacks feel wonderful and uplifted?

reply to post by divideandconquer


Of course they're racist, and sexist, and pretty much have no consideration for anybody bellow them. They think they're better than everyone, and we're just here to provide labour they can exploit to maintain their privileged lifestyles.

"If you care to take a closer look at the way things really stand, you'd see we're all just 'n-word's to the rulers of this land" Crass