Is it time for revolution?

#176
#176
therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was great faction people who were against the revolution for independence too. There will always be those who disagree and we can not all agree on everything. The national tax is an extremely simple and fair way to tax. It doesn't need some scummy lawyer/politician to underwrite a million things and make a 70,000 page document to break down a different rate for every commodity as you suggested earlier. I asked for one reason how this idea would be unfair, tell me how that is unfair instead of trying to push a federal government land grab on me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#177
#177
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...

Interesting...

My only concern would be, what if the average joe can't afford to pay the taxes on land that is fully paid for? Does he lose that property? What is the consequence of not paying your property taxes?
 
#178
#178
Obsessed said:
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.
Click to expand...

The land owner will naturally increase rent prices to offset taxes like they do now.
 
#180
#180
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting...

My only concern would be, what if the average joe can't afford to pay the taxes on land that is fully paid for? Does he lose that property? What is the consequence of not paying your property taxes?
Click to expand...

I would say the same thing would happen as it happens now. Government comes and takes it.
 
#181
#181
Obsessed said:
Huh?

How do I increase rent prices on 10 acres of cotton?
Click to expand...

You're asking about people who do not pay property taxes, aka renters.

I'm saying that their rent does in fact go to the property taxes of their landlords.
 
#182
#182
It's official that two (8188 and trut) who are for this can't even understand what one another is proposing. Give it up and save face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#183
#183
Vol8188 said:
You're asking about people who do not pay property taxes, aka renters.

I'm saying that their rent does in fact go to the property taxes of their landlords.
Click to expand...

No.

If they live in town, own a condo, their tax burden is not the same as mine. Hence, increasing my tax burden to offset their lack of taxes.
 
#184
#184
OrangeWayOfLife said:
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.
Click to expand...

No.

That determination is not necessary for the argument. The argument is as follows:

P1. Either property rights are natural or they are merely granted from the government.
P2. If merely granted from the government, the government has ultimate authority over property.
P3. If government has ultimate authority over property, then the government can take the property of its citizens for any reason whatsoever.
P4. If the government can take the property for any reason whatsoever, the government can tax the property at any rate it so chooses.
C1. If property rights are merely granted by the government, then the government can tax the property at any rate it so chooses.

P5. If property rights are natural, then a determination must be made as to which individuals have a natural property right.
P6. At one point, any tract of property was unowned.
P7. If unowned and now legitimately owned, a determination must be made as to how property becomes legitimately owned.
P8. Property can become legitimately owned either by first encounter, by force, or by the fact that no other individual can make a claim that the ownership is unjust.
P9. If by first encounter, then the property right transfers only by consent of the first owner.
P10. If the property right transfers only by consent of the first owner, then, taking all that has happened throughout human history into account, we can assert that the vast majority of property owned in the world is not owned by right.
P11. If one owns property but not by right, then others do not have a duty to refrain from said property.
P12. If others don't have a duty to refrain from said property, then the government does not have a duty to refrain from said property.
P13. If the gov't does not have a duty to refrain from said property, then the government can tax the property at whatever rate the government chooses.
C2. If property becomes legitimately owned (i.e., by right) through first encounter, then the government can tax the vast majority of property in the world today at whatever rate they so choose.

P14. If property becomes owned by right through force, then that with the most force can come along and take the property.
P15. The government has more force than the individual.
C3. If property becomes owned by right through force, the government can come along and take that property by right.
P16. If the government can take the property by right, the government can tax the property at whatever rate it so chooses.
C4. If property becomes owned by right through force, then the government can tax the property at whatever rate it so chooses.

P17. If property becomes owned by right due to the fact that no other individuals can complain of injustice, then by owning property one cannot be harming other individuals.
P18. Not harming other individuals is leaving as good or better off than they would be had someone else owned the property.
P19. If property becomes owned by right due to the fact that no other individuals can complain of injustice, then in owning property by right one must leave other individuals as good or better off than they would be had someone else owned the property.
P20. The only way to ensure that one leaves one better off than any other could by owning a piece of property, is to make efficient use of said property.
P21. If property becomes owned by right due to the fact that no other individuals can complain of injustice, then one must make efficient use of the property.
P22. The only manner in which society can ensure that individual property is being used as efficiently as possible is through governmental coercion.
P23. If property becomes owned by right due to the fact that no other individuals can complain of injustice, then the government can, by right, coerce to ensure efficiency.
P24. If the government can, by right, coerce to ensure efficiency, the government can tax the property.
C5. If property becomes owned by right due to the fact that no other individuals can complain of injustice, then the government can tax the property.


This is the Lockean Proviso taken to its logical conclusion by Adam Smith. If we are going to use the term "property right" (or, "individual property right")then, however such a right is construed, this entails that government may tax such property (and, only the third understanding of property right places a limit on how much the government can tax: it can tax to ensure efficiency).

Figuring out the number that would ensure efficiency is a job for economists. However, we don't need the number to understand that in theory, such taxes are just, and, depending on the number, can be fair and can promote efficiency and production. Neither consumption taxes nor income taxes can promote production. Depending on the number attached to consumption and income taxes can tell us whether such taxes are or are not fair.




The second aspect you keep railing on, is your persistent misconstrual of my line of thought, trying to pin me to a position in which I want government to have more land and more power. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I prefaced the entire argument with, "Only a property tax can encourage production and discourage government land grabs." Ideally, the only manner in which the government could attain revenue would be through a property tax. Ideally, if there were only one person who wanted a piece of land, the government would have to cede it to the individual for free, and then tax it. If two or more individuals want the land, then, and only then, could the government sell the land to the highest bidder.

Since in having land, the government would be giving up revenue, the government would have an incentive against holding land. The government would have an incentive to keep only the land that is absolutely necessary to the function of the government (some military reservations, some civil and administrative buildings, etc.). The government would have a huge incentive to unload their parks, and a large swath of parkland is fit for great productivity (either through harvesting timber, mineral resources, or crops, or through developing into places where individuals would want to pay to visit and live).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#186
#186
Obsessed said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not communism, it's actually Smithian capitalism (the antithesis of Marxism).

If you don't want to own land, then don't own land. Others will use their land by renting out apartments, rooms, commercial space, etc.

You cannot see "cultivation" here as merely harvesting crops.
 
#187
#187
Trut, we don't need the government to decide who can or can't own land. We don't need oppressive taxes on land owners which will in turn give land to the federal government. People with these sorts of views should not be considered Americans, sorry.
 
#188
#188
OrangeWayOfLife said:
There was great faction people who were against the revolution for independence too. There will always be those who disagree and we can not all agree on everything. The national tax is an extremely simple and fair way to tax. It doesn't need some scummy lawyer/politician to underwrite a million things and make a 70,000 page document to break down a different rate for every commodity as you suggested earlier. I asked for one reason how this idea would be unfair, tell me how that is unfair instead of trying to push a federal government land grab on me.
Click to expand...

I've already stated how it would be either unfair or a losing proposition. The FairTax claims that it will give a prefund for basic necessities, as well, some basic necessities will be nontaxable. The problem is that my basic needs are vastly different and less expensive than the basic needs of others. Either everyone gets a larger prefund and there are more untaxable items or the basic needs of some are not covered. The latter is absolutely unfair. The former, at the very least, entails less revenue will be taken in by the FairTax system than its proponents claim.

The FairTax idea is seductive because it appears to be such a simple way to abundantly take in revenue without inconveniencing anyone. But, it's only simple if it is not a way to abundantly take in revenue without inconveniencing anyone. If it is complicated, it can take in a great deal of revenue without inconveniencing anyone, but then the expense side of the ledger grows, as you would not a bureaucratic institution similar to the IRS.
 
#189
#189
therealUT said:
It's not communism, it's actually Smithian capitalism (the antithesis of Marxism).

If you don't want to own land, then don't own land. Others will use their land by renting out apartments, rooms, commercial space, etc.

You cannot see "cultivation" here as merely harvesting crops.
Click to expand...

The majority will be crops and livestock. I'd wager 90% of said land would be used for this.

You have stated you own some land. What do you do with your land? How many acres do you have?
 
#190
#190
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting...

My only concern would be, what if the average joe can't afford to pay the taxes on land that is fully paid for? Does he lose that property? What is the consequence of not paying your property taxes?
Click to expand...

He can sell. If there are no buyers, he loses the property.
 
#191
#191
therealUT said:
I've already stated how it would be either unfair or a losing proposition. The FairTax claims that it will give a prefund for basic necessities, as well, some basic necessities will be nontaxable. The problem is that my basic needs are vastly different and less expensive than the basic needs of others. Either everyone gets a larger prefund and there are more untaxable items or the basic needs of some are not covered. The latter is absolutely unfair. The former, at the very least, entails less revenue will be taken in by the FairTax system than its proponents claim.

The FairTax idea is seductive because it appears to be such a simple way to abundantly take in revenue without inconveniencing anyone. But, it's only simple if it is not a way to abundantly take in revenue without inconveniencing anyone. If it is complicated, it can take in a great deal of revenue without inconveniencing anyone, but then the expense side of the ledger grows, as you would not a bureaucratic institution similar to the IRS.
Click to expand...

I'm not referencing the fair tax act verbatim, I'm talking a national sales tax, one flat rate, paid at the cash register. Nothing more, nothing less
 
#193
#193
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Trut, we don't need the government to decide who can or can't own land. We don't need oppressive taxes on land owners which will in turn give land to the federal government. People with these sorts of views should not be considered Americans, sorry.
Click to expand...

I don't care whether or not anyone thinks I am pro- or anti-American. I see little value in being a "good American"; i.e., I don't give a ****.

The government is not deciding who can or cannot own land, individuals with money are making those decisions for themselves. Further, I've said nothing about "oppressive" taxes. I've said the taxes ought to be high enough to motivate production and cover necessary government expenses. I don't know what that number is, but to assert that it is necessarily oppressive one would need the number, need to show that is the only number that would work, and show how that number is oppressive.

Further, one would also need to provide a number for "necessary government expenses". Most in here know how much I loathe most government expenses. So, my number for necessary expenses is going to be extremely low. That does not mean my number is correct, but again, it calls for a determination of necessary government expenses, and that number could be much lower than the level of government expenses we currently have.

Finally, you still cannot get off this, "This plan is giving huge amounts of land to the Federal Government" kick. Stop putting those words into my mouth. If that is the only major retort to the argument, then please demonstrate the following:

1. How this would necessarily happen?

2. How if no one wanted a piece of land, even free of charge with a $1/year tax on said piece of land, the government ownership of such land would be bad?

Like I said, the number is not determined, so to show that these things would necessarily result from such a practice, you have to show that they would be terrible for any given number. I've set it at $1. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#194
#194
Obsessed said:
The majority will be crops and livestock. I'd wager 90% of said land would be used for this.

You have stated you own some land. What do you do with your land? How many acres do you have?
Click to expand...

I have a house and I live in it.
 
#195
#195
therealUT said:
I don't care whether or not anyone thinks I am pro- or anti-American. I see little value in being a "good American"; i.e., I don't give a ****.

The government is not deciding who can or cannot own land, individuals with money are making those decisions for themselves. Further, I've said nothing about "oppressive" taxes. I've said the taxes ought to be high enough to motivate production and cover necessary government expenses. I don't know what that number is, but to assert that it is necessarily oppressive one would need the number, need to show that is the only number that would work, and show how that number is oppressive.

Further, one would also need to provide a number for "necessary government expenses". Most in here know how much I loathe most government expenses. So, my number for necessary expenses is going to be extremely low. That does not mean my number is correct, but again, it calls for a determination of necessary government expenses, and that number could be much lower than the level of government expenses we currently have.

Finally, you still cannot get off this, "This plan is giving huge amounts of land to the Federal Government" kick. Stop putting those words into my mouth. If that is the only major retort to the argument, then please demonstrate the following:

1. How this would necessarily happen?

2. How if no one wanted a piece of land, even free of charge with a $1/year tax on said piece of land, the government ownership of such land would be bad?

Like I said, the number is not determined, so to show that these things would necessarily result from such a practice, you have to show that they would be terrible for any given number. I've set it at $1. Good luck.
Click to expand...

People can't pay the taxes, the government seizes the land. That's directly out of the horses mouth. Now you are implying the wealthy should have majority control over the majority of land. My house sits on one acre of land, how will increasing my property taxes incite me to get "more production" out of my land. Please explain that to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#196
#196
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I'm not referencing the fair tax act verbatim, I'm talking a national sales tax, one flat rate, paid at the cash register. Nothing more, nothing less
Click to expand...

So, no prefund?

Are all items taxable to everyone?

Are all services taxable to everyone?

Are there refunds?
 
#200
#200
OrangeWayOfLife said:
People can't pay the taxes, the government seizes the land. That's directly out of the horses mouth. Now you are implying the wealthy should have majority control over the majority of land. My house sits on one acre of land, how will increasing my property taxes incite me to get "more production" out of my land. Please explain that to me.
Click to expand...

Where have I implied that? Asserting that one who cannot pay his taxes must give up his land does not imply that the wealthy should have majority control over the land, unless you are merely conflating "wealthy" with "landowner" (how very Marxist). It implies that one who cannot pay their taxes on their land no longer gets to keep their land, and is free to sell it to the highest bidder, or if there are none, he must give it up. This is no different than, "If you default on your mortgage, you either have to sell your home to pay off your loan or the bank takes your home". Do you think that practice means that the majority of the control of land ends up in control of the wealthy? I don't.

You can do a lot to get more production. You can rent out rooms, you can plant a garden to offset some of your own food costs, you can plant a garden and sell some of the produce, etc. Or, if you don't want to do any of this and you don't want to pay the tax, you can sell to someone who is willing to either make the land more productive or to pay the tax.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top