Is it time for revolution?

#151
#151
Obsessed said:
It won't work TRUT.

You suggest a set tax rate for a piece of land.

Let's use a 10 acre tract. Both are taxed at 5,000 dollars a year. You grow grass (hay) for livestock to eat. I grow cotton. Cotton nets a larger profit than hay.

Who is getting screwed?
Click to expand...

Neither is getting screwed.
 
#153
#153
therealUT said:
The nuclear power plant example is not convincing. The individuals who buy the large swath of land for the power plant, as it stands even now, but more land than is strictly needed to cultivate power, yet they are only buying all the land in order to cultivate and sell power. Nothing changes in that scenario, except now they purchase the land at a lower cost because someone doesn't want to pay the taxes on it, and then pay taxes. Nothing necessarily entails an increase in price. Further, even if the price of electricity increased (over what, less efficient power plants that are currently supplying most of the electricity?), the price of most other basic goods will still have decreased due to the simple mechanics of supply and demand.

This leads me back to the first point, re: Adam Smith doesn't work today because the world is different. It's not in any relevant sense, as the principles of logic and economics are timeless.
Click to expand...

So answer the question then. Who controls the land that owners cannot pay their taxes on? And land that will not sell?
 
#154
#154
Grand Vol said:
So you understand the large hole in your theory then. And you (should) know the cost of taxes will never be offset by the income of the goods from said property if larger tracts of land are required yet sit idle.
Click to expand...

It's not a hole in the theory. It's a pricing consideration the farmer must make. Further, the taxes can and would be offset. Market prices for goods would change and individuals looking to enter the market would consult such research. Only the most efficient producers would survive. That's a great economic world to live in.
 
#156
#156
Grand Vol said:
So answer the question then. Who controls the land that owners cannot pay their taxes on? And land that will not sell?
Click to expand...

If one cannot sell, one can always cede the land to the government. The government must accept free land. This is bad for the government, as it loses tax revenue, so the government continually seeks out the highest bidder to buy the land.
 
#157
#157
therealUT said:
It's not a hole in the theory. It's a pricing consideration the farmer must make. Further, the taxes can and would be offset. Market prices for goods would change and individuals looking to enter the market would consult such research. Only the most efficient producers would survive. That's a great economic world to live in.
Click to expand...

Market prices would change by going up to offset the taxes on land they are not and cannot use for a growing season or more.
 
#159
#159
therealUT said:
If one cannot sell, one can always cede the land to the government. The government must accept free land. This is bad for the government, as it loses tax revenue, so the government continually seeks out the highest bidder to buy the land.
Click to expand...

And you experience stagnated growth and even higher taxes on property already owned since the government will be forced to recoup the losses through other means. The government would end up controlling vast amounts of land they cannot tax and cannot sell since the average Joe or Jane cannot afford or refuses to pay the taxes to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#160
#160
Grand Vol said:
Market prices would change by going up to offset the taxes on land they are not and cannot use for a growing season or more.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Market prices are determined not solely via COGS but also by supply and demand. Further, as stated before (maybe not explicitly enough), the value of the dollar would respond in kind.

This is a short term problem, as persons with 100 points of purchasing power might find themselves with 90 points of purchasing power, but over the long run, not a problem.
 
#161
#161
Grand Vol said:
And you experience stagnated growth and even higher taxes on property already owned since the government will be forced to recoup the losses through other means. The government would end up controlling vast amounts of land they cannot tax and cannot sell since the average Joe or Jane cannot afford or refuses to pay the taxes to begin with.
Click to expand...

Not even close to correct. The government, in order to collect revenue, will turn around and sell the property as soon as it can. Joe or Jane will get a lower price than they would in today's setup. Further, Joe and Jane would then use their property to produce revenue for themselves.
 
#162
#162
therealUT said:
If one cannot sell, one can always cede the land to the government. The government must accept free land. This is bad for the government, as it loses tax revenue, so the government continually seeks out the highest bidder to buy the land.
Click to expand...

You really want to give more land to the government? Maybe we could give this land to royal blood lines and let them rent it out at lower rates for those who can't afford the taxes of ownership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#163
#163
Grand Vol said:
Yeah, collusion has never happened before.
Click to expand...

Of course it has, but that does not mean it's necessary or that this system entails collusion will be permitted. One can tax property and have very stringent anti-collusion laws.
 
#164
#164
therealUT said:
Not even close to correct. The government, in order to collect revenue, will turn around and sell the property as soon as it can. Joe or Jane will get a lower price than they would in today's setup. Further, Joe and Jane would then use their property to produce revenue for themselves.
Click to expand...

You ignore the basic problem here though...

What happens when that property won't sell?

ETA: Or you have a system like today where the government controls large tracts of land that is not taxed, yet could be if in the hands of the citizens.
 
#165
#165
OrangeWayOfLife said:
You really want to give more land to the government? Maybe we could give this land to royal blood lines and let them rent it out at lower rates for those who can't afford the taxes of ownership.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension and tracking a line of thought over a great many words is not your strong suit. Try again.
 
#167
#167
therealUT said:
Not even close to correct. The government, in order to collect revenue, will turn around and sell the property as soon as it can. Joe or Jane will get a lower price than they would in today's setup. Further, Joe and Jane would then use their property to produce revenue for themselves.
Click to expand...

Do you have any clue what you are talking about or just spewing crap out. Only a very small percentage of America is heavily populated. You obviously don't grasp how much open land we have in this country. It's physically impossible for every piece of American soil to be income producing, this is the most outlandish argument I've yet to have. This isn't England chap, were land is not at a abundant source, your ideal is something that would make sense in small land mass, high populated land. It will never work here, it will never get support, give it up. Or move to England
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#168
#168
therealUT said:
Reading comprehension and tracking a line of thought over a great many words is not your strong suit. Try again.
Click to expand...

Your line of thought is untrackable. You fail to fairly access the situation you present and the ramifications of said "line of thought". Outside of our national park service and the current administrative lands we have for our federal government, there is absolutely no reason for us, the citizens, to sacrifice our lands to the federal government because we can not afford the taxes. Just the thought of this infuriates me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#170
#170
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Do you have any clue what you are talking about or just spewing crap out. Only a very small percentage of America is heavily populated. You obviously don't grasp how much open land we have in this country. It's physically impossible for every piece of American soil to be income producing, this is the most outlandish argument I've yet to have. This isn't England chap, were land is not at a abundant source, your ideal is something that would make sense in small land mass, high populated land. It will never work here, it will never get support, give it up. Or move to England
Click to expand...
I'm quite aware of how much land in the western US is currently owned by the state and federal government. As for the impossibility of all land to be income producing, I disagree. It's quite possible that one can gain income on any tract of land.

As for whether it will work here, you're probably right. But, why should I care about what what will work as opposed to the way things should be? Hell, the FairTax will probably never work here, but you want it and argue for it. A revolution will probably never work here, but some want it and argue for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#171
#171
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Your line of thought is untrackable. You fail to fairly access the situation you present and the ramifications of said "line of thought". Outside of our national park service and the current administrative lands we have for our federal government, there is absolutely no reason for us, the citizens, to sacrifice our lands to the federal government because we can not afford the taxes. Just the thought of this infuriates me.
Click to expand...

I care little about your infuriation, and you still are not tracking my line of thought. Try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#172
#172
Grand Vol said:
Sell for a dollar, taxed at $10,000 to make ends meet.
Click to expand...

Where did I say taxed at $10,000. That's your number, not mine. I don't know what the actual number would be, as that's a function of total land mass and what we think ought to be necessary expenses of the government.
 
#173
#173
therealUT said:
Where did I say taxed at $10,000. That's your number, not mine. I don't know what the actual number would be, as that's a function of total land mass and what we think ought to be necessary expenses of the government.
Click to expand...
Ok, since you want to argue this point so hard. Breakdown what the tax would have to be per acre to equal the amount tax generated via income tax for the year 2013.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#174
#174
therealUT said:
Where did I say taxed at $10,000. That's your number, not mine. I don't know what the actual number would be, as that's a function of total land mass and what we think ought to be necessary expenses of the government.
Click to expand...

Yes TRUT, that's my arbitrary number. And again, if the government cannot make revenue from one end, it will make it from another.
 
#175
#175
therealUT said:
Where did I say taxed at $10,000. That's your number, not mine. I don't know what the actual number would be, as that's a function of total land mass and what we think ought to be necessary expenses of the government.
Click to expand...

What about the folks that don't want to own land? They would rather live in town in a condo... Would they tax burden on the land owners then not go up to offset the ones who don't want to "farm" some land??

This just screams communism to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top