I have often argued that the right to private property is conditional on having paid the taxes due to acquire that right of ownership, whether that tax was due directly in the course of its acquisition or indirectly to . In other words, the right to any property, whether it is an asset or an income stream is to own that asset net of the taxes due on acquiring or keeping it.
The following comes from the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is part of the European Convention on Human Rights:
It would seem the ECHR entirely agrees with me. I am delighted to note this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
They also feel that benefits are possessions (Stec & others v United Kingdom [2005] ) and that people should indeed be, as they say above, entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of them. So how can workfare, sanctions and indeed, the entire Atos farce and migration from Incapacity Benefit to ESA be legal at all? More here http://gwenhwyfaer.posterous.com/reinstatement. Catch it quick before Posterous, on which it’s hosted, ends.
The right to exclusive use of land, which is part of the commons, should be subject to payment of the rent to the community to which it rightly belongs.
Extrapolation at its worst…..So the ECHR states a right to property but with the understandable caveat that you pay the tax in securing it.
You look at that and go Ah ha, if the State can levy any taxes it wants (with the only requirement being democratic consent, an idea that terrifies me!) then the State can ask for 100% of the asset value if it wanted…………..meaning how much is left to the individual is for the State to decide!
Ergo the State really has the right to all of it if it wants so the State owns the property and there are actually no individual property rights as described in the ECHR!
Madness……just madness!
Did I ever say 100%
Stop talking absolute nonsense and setting up entirely false straw men
Argue or be forever deleted is my fair warning
What I am saying is quite clear……
You claim the State has the right to tax what it likes if with democratic consent?…..Yes?
That this tax could be 100% of an asset if as above backed by democratic consent?…….Yes?
Now I agree that this is unlikely, in the same way as it is unlikely the State would drag me into the street and shoot me……….but forgive me if I seek more reassurance than “well democracy should stop that from happening!”
If a state decided to tax 100% it would be entirely legitimate – yes, of course that’s true – as it was in the UK when done in the 1960s
But I don’t think it will happen again