Is it time for revolution?

#107
#107
How can you hipsters call yourselves alcoholics until you've sucked the residue out of a 55 y/o jug of turpentine?
 
#109
#109
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Maybe I'm just amped up from watching sons of liberty but if the founding fathers were here in today's America, how would they view it? They though they were taxed then, what about now? Personal freedoms and liberties have gone by the wayside. Some of the smartest men in the world congregated here in America at the same time and we are lucky enough to live in the free world they created, or so it should be. Now we are being ran over by an intrusive, over spending, freedom attacking federal government that can not be trusted. Our over reaching government here is the same/worse than being under British law. And to think everybody in America at the time was for the revolution is Extremely naive, there was a good faction of "loyalist" who were against the revolution. They called the revolutionists crazy loons like many of you will do here towards me. Just something to think about, how many freedoms have you lost while I was typing this.


Edit: just so you know, revolutions don't have to be violent overthrows of current governments, just wanted to clear that up
Click to expand...

We're too fat, lazy, and apathetic to revolt against anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#110
#110
Burhead said:
We're too fat, lazy, and apathetic to revolt against anything.
Click to expand...

I am rail thin, motivated by further consumption of alcohol, and I really care about things whenever I can remember them. We're still doomed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#114
#114
82_VOL_83 said:
You advocate paying nearly every dime we make in taxes. I said WTF your post is full of fail. End cogent analysis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, THAT is exactly what I said...not quite.

I did forget to clarify lowering the income tax rates for middle class incomes, but raising it on the wealthy AND making sure there are no non-payers. Everyone receives benefit from government investment in society, so all people should pay into it, even if at a small rate. The poor receive benefit, especially in terms of government assistance, and thus should also pay taxes. The wealthy also receive direct and indirect benefits in greater proportion than the middle class and poor, and should pay back to society in proportion to their benefit.

We ALL benefit from public infrastructure, public education, public transportation, public defense, etc., and we should ALL help support those institutions through our collective tax dollars.

Many welfare programs should also be reformed as no-interest loans, with few exceptions, and numerous obligations to maintain that assistance.

A good way to piss off everybody: advocate higher income taxes on the wealthy AND the strict streamlining of welfare. Democrats & Republicans both go apoplectic at such notions.

Drop corporate taxes to zero, which will help reduce costs for businesses and lower prices for consumers. Raise income taxes on the wealthy, and reform welfare. In turn, institute universal health care (or universal health insurance), which greatly assists the middle class and poor. The lowering of consumer prices and gov't health care provide relief and make up for the loss of expendable income that may come with tax increases.

I believe there are sensible solutions, but they are interspersed between both parties, and most politicians simply toe the party line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#115
#115
JoeKyleVol said:
Yeah, THAT is exactly what I said...not quite.

I did forget to clarify lowering the income tax rates for middle class incomes, but raising it on the wealthy AND making sure there are no non-payers. Everyone receives benefit from government investment in society, so all people should pay into it, even if at a small rate. The poor receive benefit, especially in terms of government assistance, and thus should also pay taxes. The wealthy also receive direct and indirect benefits in greater proportion than the middle class and poor, and should pay back to society in proportion to their benefit.

We ALL benefit from public infrastructure, public education, public transportation, public defense, etc., and we should ALL help support those institutions through our collective tax dollars.

Many welfare programs should also be reformed as no-interest loans, with few exceptions, and numerous obligations to maintain that assistance.

A good way to piss off everybody: advocate higher income taxes on the wealthy AND the strict streamlining of welfare. Democrats & Republicans both go apoplectic at such notions.

Drop corporate taxes to zero, which will help reduce costs for businesses and lower prices for consumers. Raise income taxes on the wealthy, and reform welfare. In turn, institute universal health care (or universal health insurance), which greatly assists the middle class and poor. The lowering of consumer prices and gov't health care provide relief and make up for the loss of expendable income that may come with tax increases.

I believe there are sensible solutions, but they are interspersed between both parties, and most politicians simply toe the party line.
Click to expand...

We would ALL pay national sales tax, even illegals. And we would ALL still reap the "rewards". Taxing expenses is simply the fairest way of taxation. If 40% income tax isn't oppressive, then shoot me dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#116
#116
OrangeWayOfLife said:
We would ALL pay national sales tax, even illegals. And we would ALL still reap the "rewards". Taxing expenses is simply the fairest way of taxation. If 40% income tax isn't oppressive, then shoot me dead.
Click to expand...

Actually not the fairest or the best way, though better than income tax. I say we follow Adam Smith and tax the **** out of property. It's the only form of taxation that encourages production and discourages government land grabs.
 
#117
#117
therealUT said:
Actually not the fairest or the best way, though better than income tax. I say we follow Adam Smith and tax the **** out of property. It's the only form of taxation that encourages production and discourages government land grabs.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
#118
#118
Grand Vol said:
How so?
Click to expand...

If your property is going to be taxed, the rational being is going to use it to offset such taxes. Basically, the rational individual will buy no more land than she absolutely needs, else she will buy land that she can cultivate in some manner.

As we currently stand, many wealthy individuals purchase large tracts of land which lie dormant. The land, for them, is an investment, and they do little to nothing with such land, few even rent such sites out, and they rarely visit the land themselves.

This is a waste of a truly finite resource, a resource that can often be cultivated wherever it is found. By highly taxing property, the landowner is forced to make such property useful to all, either by merely paying the taxes or by paying the taxes and increasing productivity.

It's amazing that for all the glory many self-declared "fiscal conservatives" heap upon Adam Smith, they largely ignore most of what he wrote in Wealth of Nations (as he is also a welfare capitalist).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
therealUT said:
Actually not the fairest or the best way, though better than income tax. I say we follow Adam Smith and tax the **** out of property. It's the only form of taxation that encourages production and discourages government land grabs.
Click to expand...

What is the fair market value of any property subject to immediate taxation which may require liquidation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#120
#120
therealUT said:
If your property is going to be taxed, the rational being is going to use it to offset such taxes. Basically, the rational individual will buy no more land than she absolutely needs, else she will buy land that she can cultivate in some manner.

As we currently stand, many wealthy individuals purchase large tracts of land which lie dormant. The land, for them, is an investment, and they do little to nothing with such land, few even rent such sites out, and they rarely visit the land themselves.

This is a waste of a truly finite resource, a resource that can often be cultivated wherever it is found. By highly taxing property, the landowner is forced to make such property useful to all, either by merely paying the taxes or by paying the taxes and increasing productivity.

It's amazing that for all the glory many self-declared "fiscal conservatives" heap upon Adam Smith, they largely ignore most of what he wrote in Wealth of Nations (as he is also a welfare capitalist).
Click to expand...

So how much land would be sitting idle on the market if this were passed and how at all is that fair and you would have to tax land so high that only the elite could afford it. That's what you want? That is no damn where near the American dream. One of the great attribute of being a free American is the opportunity for the common man to own land. This by and far the most absurd thing I've heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#121
#121
therealUT said:
If your property is going to be taxed, the rational being is going to use it to offset such taxes. Basically, the rational individual will buy no more land than she absolutely needs, else she will buy land that she can cultivate in some manner.

As we currently stand, many wealthy individuals purchase large tracts of land which lie dormant. The land, for them, is an investment, and they do little to nothing with such land, few even rent such sites out, and they rarely visit the land themselves.

This is a waste of a truly finite resource, a resource that can often be cultivated wherever it is found. By highly taxing property, the landowner is forced to make such property useful to all, either by merely paying the taxes or by paying the taxes and increasing productivity.

It's amazing that for all the glory many self-declared "fiscal conservatives" heap upon Adam Smith, they largely ignore most of what he wrote in Wealth of Nations (as he is also a welfare capitalist).
Click to expand...

I would think that would be highly detrimental to small farmers and corporate farms.

Small farmers tend to be land-rich yet cash-poor, so simply taxing their property beyond what they can sustain when they are ALREADY using it for a productive purpose seems to counter your own reasoning for raising property taxes.

Corporate farms would likewise see a tremendous increase in taxes and would have to adjust product price accordingly. Price of food skyrockets. Small farms go out of business.

In Adam Smith's time, the vast majority of land was owned by very wealthy aristocrats and the Church. Smith's suggestion was progressive for his day, taxing the landed gentry to support the landless peasantry. Thomas Paine puts forth a similar argument in Agrarian Justice. Today, instead of land, compounding capital is the moneyed aristocracy's greatest asset.
 
#122
#122
Ernest T. Vol said:
What is the fair market value of any property subject to immediate taxation which may require liquidation?
Click to expand...

No need to assess the fair market value, unless the tax is to be based on such a valuation. Neither Smith nor Ricardo thought it ought to be, since doing so is too subjective and prone to corruption. The tax is one rate for one size, across the board.

At first glance, this seems absurd. However, the tax ends up becoming a major determinant in the value of marketable goods, and thus the market prices end up moving in a way that makes the previous assumption of absurdity absurd.
 
#123
#123
therealUT said:
If your property is going to be taxed, the rational being is going to use it to offset such taxes. Basically, the rational individual will buy no more land than she absolutely needs, else she will buy land that she can cultivate in some manner.

As we currently stand, many wealthy individuals purchase large tracts of land which lie dormant. The land, for them, is an investment, and they do little to nothing with such land, few even rent such sites out, and they rarely visit the land themselves.

This is a waste of a truly finite resource, a resource that can often be cultivated wherever it is found. By highly taxing property, the landowner is forced to make such property useful to all, either by merely paying the taxes or by paying the taxes and increasing productivity.

It's amazing that for all the glory many self-declared "fiscal conservatives" heap upon Adam Smith, they largely ignore most of what he wrote in Wealth of Nations (as he is also a welfare capitalist).
Click to expand...

You also portray as though wealthy people have bought up all the land are just letting it all sit idle. That's not the case. I'm assuming you don't own land so you see this as way for you not to pay taxes. How is a 15% sales tax not fair, please explain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#124
#124
therealUT said:
If your property is going to be taxed, the rational being is going to use it to offset such taxes. Basically, the rational individual will buy no more land than she absolutely needs, else she will buy land that she can cultivate in some manner.

As we currently stand, many wealthy individuals purchase large tracts of land which lie dormant. The land, for them, is an investment, and they do little to nothing with such land, few even rent such sites out, and they rarely visit the land themselves.

This is a waste of a truly finite resource, a resource that can often be cultivated wherever it is found. By highly taxing property, the landowner is forced to make such property useful to all, either by merely paying the taxes or by paying the taxes and increasing productivity.

It's amazing that for all the glory many self-declared "fiscal conservatives" heap upon Adam Smith, they largely ignore most of what he wrote in Wealth of Nations (as he is also a welfare capitalist).
Click to expand...

So the government gets to decide how much property is "enough" for a single person?

I have 3.5 acres. Is that too much for a single person? I don't cultivate it or anything of the nature. But

How about ranchers for another example. They own hundreds or even thousands of acres and sometimes just do well enough to scrape by. But then we allow the government to tax it further which means they either sell portions of it to lower the tax rate and in turn not have enough land to sustain a larger herd and in turn lower profits. Or farmers that need multiple plots to rotate the fields between seasons. That land is unproductive for a season or two yet is still going to be taxed without additional income to offset the taxes.

And since when would the government tax itself on land ownership?

The government can tell me when I'm excessive? No, this reeks of almost a communist slant of doing business. Because it does little more than promote so called "equality" since you cannot have more than your neighbor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#125
#125
OrangeWayOfLife said:
So how much land would be sitting idle on the market if this were passed and how at all is that fair and you would have to tax land so high that only the elite could afford it. That's what you want? That is no damn where near the American dream. One of the great attribute of being a free American is the opportunity for the common man to own land. This by and far the most absurd thing I've heard.
Click to expand...

Land would not sit idle, as individuals who neither want to pay the taxes nor cultivate the land will sell, and sell at low rates, if no one who desires to either pay the tax or pay the tax and cultivate is willing to pay the current exorbitant prices that are land prices.

If the elite do want to pay the high prices and the high taxes, they will be forced to cultivate to offset. Higher production, lower prices of goods, is much more beneficial than the "American Dream" of owning land.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top