Oddbean new post about login | logout Who else is benefitting from the police other than property owners and the people they associate with?
What do you mean by “people they associate with”? Police protect all citizens, regardless of property ownership. Assault victims, traffic violations, vandalism, theft, prostitution, drugs, fraud…… Are you trolling me or driving towards a point?
As in, why protect people who in no way benefit the property owners? It makes sense for police to prosecute other crimes because ultimately that benefits property owners and their loved ones and customers. If someone comes to a piece of property and doesn't bring any benefit to the owners of that property, it makes no economic sense to protect those people. In practice, of course, almost everyone inhabiting a piece of property is associated with the property owners somehow.
I think all citizens deserve “property” protection from law enforcement, regardless of real estate ownership status. “Property” defined more broadly to include goods and body. We started with property tax, which is only levied against real estate owners. I’m simply making the case that property taxes are an unfair form of taxation, especially because of how the funds are redistributed. Thanks for engaging earnestly 🙏
>I think all citizens deserve “property” protection from law enforcement, regardless of real estate ownership status. “Property” defined more broadly to include goods and body. I think everyone deserves protection too, but I think the same thing about food. Just because someone deserves something doesn't mean they're entitled to demand that others provide that good free of charge. If you think some people are required to protect other people free of charge, you are a Communist. >We started with property tax, which is only levied against real estate owners. I’m simply making the case that property taxes are an unfair form of taxation, especially because of how the funds are redistributed. Sure, if funds were only put towards protection of property, that would be a much better situation. Of course, property owners may decide that providing other free services to residents helps protect property in the long run by limiting unrest. >Thanks for engaging earnestly 🙏 Same to you! :)
We agree that services should not be provided free of charge. That’s why I make the case for property tax as unfair- it pays for schools, roads, fire, police, etc that all local citizens benefit from but not all pay towards. A local flat fee would better serve these funding wants from government. In the case of property tax funding services other than property protection, I’m fine with that, especially if the property owners agree, but I’m not fine with everyone getting a vote on those issues. I live in CA, and every election cycle we vote on local bonds that fund a school building, road maintenance, etc. These bonds are repaid thru property tax increases. 100% of local voters get a vote, but only ~60% of us own property. That’s problematic imo.
Sure, I'm not sure I agree that all of those additional services have nothing to do with protecting property. You want people near your property to be safe, educated, and happy if you want to maximize your property's value and the enjoyment you can get from owning it.