Letter To Palmyra Borough Council

Feb. 4, 2006
Dear Council members:

I am writing in regard to the 26 percent property tax increase the borough recently approved.
As a "property owner" and twenty year resident of this beautiful borough, I would like to voice my opposition and outrage at this burdensome tax increase and would like to ask some fundamental questions about the borough’s power to tax "private property."
I would really appreciate it if someone in borough council could explain how we can be considered to be property owners if we can have our property taxed and even taken from us if we either refuse or are unable due to financial hardship to pay the property tax. Ownership of something, whether property or a television set, for example, implies that the object owned cannot be taken from or utilized by another party without the owners consent. To take or in anyway change or deface something owned by another party without that party’s consent is considered theft or destruction of personal property.
Therefore, I would really like to understand, philosophically how private property can be taxed against the wishes of the owner and furthermore, why aren’t the increases set by the property owner instead of a third party, namely borough council? After all, it is the property owner who needs to bear the financial burden of increased property taxes. Can we really say that we own our home if it can in fact be taken from us? Perhaps property ownership in an illusion. I say this not just because of the taxes levied on the property, but also due to the fact that to make additions and certain enhancements to the property, the "property owner" needs to first obtain permission and purchase a permit from the borough. Again, if we truly own our property, how is it justified that we must obtain permission to improve it? Do I need to obtain anyone’s permission to add a DVD player to my television? If I decided I wanted to paint my television set magenta, I would not need to obtain a permit or seek some outside entities’ permission. Why? Because I own the television set and therefore can do with it as I please with no fear of reprisal. Why is it different with my home and property?
I completely understand that property tax has traditionally been the mechanism by which public education has been funded, and I am a supporter of public education. But, the time has come to completely restructure the tax system to find a less burdensome, more equitable way of funding the public schools. Many property owners are strapped to their limit financially and a 26 percent increase may just be what it would take to break them. Perhaps they have debts from vehicle loans, mortgages and college education for their children. Did the borough think of that when they decided to raise the property tax? Did the borough even take into consideration at all what the financial consequences on their residents would be with the increased property tax, or did they just see us as a means to an end? And, as unarguably important as public education is, why does the need to fund it by such burdensome taxation supersede the individual taxpayer’s responsibility for his or her own personal financial needs? Shouldn’t feeding my family and providing housing, clothing, medications, etc., be the primary concern in my financial dichotomy? It is nothing short of pure arrogance when the borough, or any taxing entity for that matter, presupposes that your tax responsibility comes before your personal and familial responsibilities. Furthermore, when individuals in the private sector do not have enough financial reserves to fulfill their obligations, they need to sacrifice. Maybe they will have to send their child to a college of lesser quality, or perhaps not send them at all. They may have to cancel vacations or the purchase of a new vehicle or put off that home improvement project. Millions of Americans have to make these types of decisions every day because unlike their borough/city council, state and federal government, they don’t have the power to enforce others to underwrite their expenses through the coercive act of taxation. Yet, aren’t their needs just as legitimate, indeed in some cases more legitimate than the need for public education or government services?
My opinion is that any taxing entity, Palmyra borough included, operates on a "might makes right" principle. It is not that their need for tax revenue is any more vital or important than my need to have the resources to fulfil my financial obligations. The difference is, the taxing entity has the "might" to take other people’s hard earned money and I do not. Government takes your money and it is called taxation and the victim, re the taxpayer, faces punishment if he or she refuses or cannot pay. If an individual takes another person’s money it is called theft and the individual is subject to punishment.
It would behoove all of us to admit the sad truth that property rights are myths and we are just unpaid caretakers of property we really do not own. Let me digress a moment and present an appropriate example of what I mean. Last year, a very good friend of mine who is also a resident and "property owner" in the borough was in the midst of dealing with his father’s battle with terminal cancer. During this time, the borough came and did a "smoke test" on his parents sewer pipes and determined that they needed to be replaced. His mother, in addition to dealing with her husband’s illness, hired a private, local company to run tests on her sewer pipes. The company used a "snake" with a camera and examined the pipes. Their determination was that the pipes were okay. My friend told me his mother then presented this information to the borough council in hopes that they would withdraw their demand that she have the pipes replaced. The council apparently wasn’t convinced and her back yard had to be dug up and the pipes replaced at a cost to her of thousands of dollars. All this again while she was dealing with her husband’s illness and eventual death. How can she be said to be the owner of that property when she was forced to pay for her sewer pipes to be replaced when a private company concluded they were fine? What if she could not have afforded to have the yard destroyed, pipes replaced and then the yard landscaped again and re-seeded? Obviously the borough didn’t have any sympathy for her circumstances. Might made right and the borough got what it wanted.
So, if we really do not own our property, as a retired state legislator once even admitted to me, why are we paying taxes on it? We are renting our homes from the borough and therefore the tax burden should fall on them. On a philosophical level, can anyone argue against what I am presenting here?
I would love nothing more than to be convinced that I am wrong about property rights and that all governments operate on the "might makes right" principle. Thank you and I await your response.