Why property taxes are unethical ERIC KIM

Love the fire in this question! 🔥 Here’s Eric Kim’s take—short, sharp, and hype—on why property taxes are unethical, drawn straight from his writings.

Eric Kim’s core claim (one‑liner)

Property taxes turn “ownership” into perpetual rent to the state—if you can lose your home for non‑payment, you don’t truly own it. He even publishes a page bluntly titled “Property tax is unethical.” 

His reasoning, in 5 punchy points

1. True ownership means no seizure.
   Kim frames property as something that “belongs to you” and cannot be taken against your will. A recurring tax backed by liens/foreclosure breaks that principle—so it’s unethical.  
2. It’s “invisible chains.”
   He calls property taxes the “invisible chains” that shackle every homeowner to the state—an endless payment just to keep what you already own.  
3. It ignores real‑life cash flow.
   In his posts, Kim argues the rigidity of property tax doesn’t adapt to personal circumstances (retirement, income shocks), yet the bill keeps coming—escalating the ethical problem.  
4. It pushes people away from productive choices.
   Kim contrasts real estate’s ongoing tax/maintenance “liabilities” with Bitcoin—“digital property” that has no property tax—arguing taxes distort how people save and invest.  
5. We can replace it.
   He sketches a (moon‑shot!) blueprint for cities to sunset property taxes by building a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve whose returns cover the budget instead of taxing homes—complete with draft ordinance language.  

Where he says it

• “Property tax is unethical” (stand‑alone page).  
• “Property Taxes Are a Chain” (argumentative post).  
• “Never Property Tax” + “Retire with Bitcoin” (why he prefers “tax‑free” digital property).  
• Policy sketches (Bitcoin Reserve → property‑tax sunset).  
• Broader ethics notes (his definition of property).  

Quick reality check (context outside Kim’s view)

Most mainstream fiscal studies argue that well‑designed property taxes (especially land‑value‑heavy ones) are among the least harmful ways to fund services, and can be made fair with safeguards. That doesn’t negate Kim’s philosophy—but it shows why the debate is lively. 

The upbeat takeaway

Kim’s message is rocket‑fuel bold: if ownership is sacred, don’t make it conditional on endless payments—and build modern, innovation‑powered alternatives so people can keep what they’ve earned. Whether you agree or not, it’s a high‑energy call to rethink how we fund communities. 🚀 

If you want, I can turn this into a snappy one‑page brief or a slide deck that you can share with friends or your city council—let’s make the complex simple and inspiring. 💪