There is indeed the threat of eviction when one is still actively repaying the amount borrowed to purchase a home, yes. The foreclosure process might not be immediate, usually taking a reported 60 days or more (so approximately at least two months) before the process is actually initiated. Defaulting on the loan, as in not paying the monthly mortgage minimum, is an easy way to jeopardize one's home ownership. However, when the mortgage is a thing of the past, the presence of ongoing annual property taxes means that even when whatever debt the home brought is gone, there would be a very real sense in which you do not fully have ownership. It is as if one has bought a computer, book, or couch and even though the full price has been paid, you must consistently pay more lest the belonging be confiscated from you. The housing that protects Americans from the elements or even from other people has this legal threat hanging over it.
This has nothing to do with whether it is morally permissible, much less just, for home ownership to be subjected to this annual taxation long after the property value has been resolved in full. The moral validity of a law would depend on if it corresponds with any objective obligations that exist, not with majority preference, personal feelings, or utilitarian outcome. It is nonetheless the unfortunate situation that collective American residents find themselves in. A car could eventually be impounded upon the failure to pay annual registration fees. So, too, can a house be taken away. With some exemptions, the inconvenience and unjust elements of property taxes can be diminished. Section 11.13 of the Texas Tax Code, for instance, provides exemptions such as $10,000 for owners of 65 years of age or older [1]. The very taxation of general homeowners for something they have already paid for, though, treats their ownership as if it is something that should never be permanent or secure even when someone has committed no wrong that merits compensation that cannot be given without selling property.
A house, like a chair or a car, morally or legally (the two are not synonymous though they could overlap) either belongs to the personal property owner in an ultimate sense or it does not. American law treats homes as if no amount of mortgage payment really entitles the buyer to what they have exchanged their wealth for. Taxation itself can be hypothetically legitimate when it is used to fund public necessities or voluntarily desired conveniences that anyone who partakes in would need to contribute to in order for there to be some kind of fairness. Without exceeding the required amount for a given project/service (which could always be adjusted later if the taxes are insufficient), taxes could be extracted from other sources that do not erode the stability of owning a place to live after paying for it. The very attachment of the property tax to a home makes it so that "owning" a house is like continually renting a movie. You might have paid enormous, hard-earned amounts for it, but it is regarded as if it is on loan from the IRS.
As contrary to the nature of personal property as this tax is, one might as well take advantage of any legacy offered exemptions. No matter how arbitrary the exemptions or how many are permitted by various states, they offer some respite from the often uncontrollable factors like rising property valuation that could help force an owner or family out of their own purchased residence. Property tax is a form of legal theft that can be more insidious than other forms of taxation for this reason. There is no basis for this of all taxes other than greed or stupidity, and it is against the basic security of a property owner's very place to sleep and accumulate their broader wealth. If true ownership rights objectively exist, the property tax violates them thoroughly. As pivotal a "belonging" as a home is, American law trivializes the nature of a home, the concept of actual ownership, the notion of property rights, and the effort that can go into buying a house.
No comments:
Post a Comment