Is it time for revolution?

#203
#203
therealUT said:
Which is why you restrict government revenue operations solely to property tax.
Click to expand...

However, they will still make revenue from the sale of said property. And when that's not sufficient, will raise the property tax to make up for a shortfall in income. And in turn, will make people shy away from buying any property as the tax rates will have increased to possibly beyond their means even if they do have a plan to cultivate (using your broad definition) it and make it "productive."

So you stagnate the economy with government being forced into a position to tax property at higher rates and the citizens not buying property in that cause and effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#204
#204
Grand Vol said:
However, they will still make revenue from the sale of said property.
Click to expand...

Only in situations in which the original owner who could not pay or did not want to pay his taxes found that his only option was to give the land to the federal government at no cost to the federal government. This is a situation in which the original owner could find no buyers, at any price, such that he merely gave it away. Now your worry is that the federal government is going to find buyers at, what I infer you to be worried about, an outrageous price? That seems implausible, at best.

Grand Vol said:
And when that's not sufficient, will raise the property tax to make up for a shortfall in income. And in turn, will make people shy away from buying any property as the tax rates will have increased to possibly beyond their means even if they do have a plan to cultivate (using your broad definition) it and make it "productive."

So you stagnate the economy with government being forced into a position to tax property at higher rates and the citizens not buying property in that cause and effect.
Click to expand...

None of this is necessary. Easy solution to the worry is to do this via a Constitutional Amendment, in which all other revenue collection operations are prohibited and the property tax rate is set. Thus, to increase the rate, the fed will have to do so through another amendment (also, include a balanced budget amendment so that the government cannot simply accrue debt).

Also, you keep saying this will stagnate the economy, but that is contingent upon the tax rate. There is nothing about a federal flat-number property tax that necessarily entails a stagnating economy.

Hell, an income-tax of 95% would kill the economy, as would a sales tax of 95%. That does not mean that an income-tax or a sales-tax necessarily kills the economy.
 
#205
#205
therealUT said:
Only in situations in which the original owner who could not pay or did not want to pay his taxes found that his only option was to give the land to the federal government at no cost to the federal government. This is a situation in which the original owner could find no buyers, at any price, such that he merely gave it away. Now your worry is that the federal government is going to find buyers at, what I infer you to be worried about, an outrageous price? That seems implausible, at best.



None of this is necessary. Easy solution to the worry is to do this via a Constitutional Amendment, in which all other revenue collection operations are prohibited and the property tax rate is set. Thus, to increase the rate, the fed will have to do so through another amendment (also, include a balanced budget amendment so that the government cannot simply accrue debt).

Also, you keep saying this will stagnate the economy, but that is contingent upon the tax rate. There is nothing about a federal flat-number property tax that necessarily entails a stagnating economy.

Hell, an income-tax of 95% would kill the economy, as would a sales tax of 95%. That does not mean that an income-tax or a sales-tax necessarily kills the economy.
Click to expand...

Would your amendment include provisions for times of war?
 
#208
#208
therealUT said:
Only in situations in which the original owner who could not pay or did not want to pay his taxes found that his only option was to give the land to the federal government at no cost to the federal government. This is a situation in which the original owner could find no buyers, at any price, such that he merely gave it away.
Click to expand...

And the government is still out the original money owed. And even if it turns around and sells it, there is no guarantee that tax income will be recouped.

therealUT said:
Now your worry is that the federal government is going to find buyers at, what I infer you to be worried about, an outrageous price? That seems implausible, at best.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't inferring the price would be outrageous. I am saying if the money they are not making in taxes off land they now own will need to be recouped in a different manner. I see you addressed it below in a Constitutional Amendment, but you and I both know that any form of organized government that operates in the red long enough can and will look at the cause of that, in this case a lack of property taxes, and seek to rectify it through other means. Which could include an Amendment to raise the property taxes or implement a tax on something else.

And you cannot say it won't happen since it already does happen.


therealUT said:
None of this is necessary. Easy solution to the worry is to do this via a Constitutional Amendment, in which all other revenue collection operations are prohibited and the property tax rate is set. Thus, to increase the rate, the fed will have to do so through another amendment (also, include a balanced budget amendment so that the government cannot simply accrue debt).
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with a balanced budget amendment.

therealUT said:
Also, you keep saying this will stagnate the economy, but that is contingent upon the tax rate. There is nothing about a federal flat-number property tax that necessarily entails a stagnating economy.
Click to expand...

Your faith that government won't tax the **** out of property is admirable, but likely misplaced.

therealUT said:
Hell, an income-tax of 95% would kill the economy, as would a sales tax of 95%. That does not mean that an income-tax or a sales-tax necessarily kills the economy.
Click to expand...

No, but it's a lot more "fair" across the board to implement a national sales tax as has been stated before instead of this property tax that can (and likely would) kill government income.
 
#209
#209
And, yet again, only a balanced and appropriate system of both sales & income (both labor & capital gains) tax is the best solution.

Relying too much on either has hugely detrimental consequences.

An overly high sales tax greatly hurts those with much less expendable income. A larger income tax on the wealthy affects those who have far more expendable income. Is this not sensible?

But too high of an income tax (and one with a thousand loopholes) pushes the wealthy to hide their money in tax havens or even leave the state or country.

So, there must be an appropriate balance for taxes on wealth, too.

The solution isn't the "Fair Tax" or egregiously high income or property taxes, but a sensible and measured usage of consumption and wealth revenue sources.
 
#210
#210
JoeKyleVol said:
And, yet again, only a balanced and appropriate system of both sales & income (both labor & capital gains) tax is the best solution.

Relying too much on either has hugely detrimental consequences.

An overly high sales tax greatly hurts those with much less expendable income. A larger income tax on the wealthy affects those who have far more expendable income. Is this not sensible?

But too high of an income tax (and one with a thousand loopholes) pushes the wealthy to hide their money in tax havens or even leave the state or country.

So, there must be an appropriate balance for taxes on wealth, too.

The solution isn't the "Fair Tax" or egregiously high income or property taxes, but a sensible and measured usage of consumption and wealth revenue sources.
Click to expand...
When you subtract tax withholdings from the current paychecks with less expendable income, then you shouldn't see them go from being sustainable to unsustainable. That's something opponents seem to not consider. How much higher will their paychecks be without all those withholdings. And you could still operate a sensible welfare system.
 
#211
#211
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...
.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    114.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#213
#213
therealUT said:
He can sell. If there are no buyers, he loses the property.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I just feel uneasy about the government taking ANY property.

I understand clearly what you are saying about land setting idle and not generating income for the state. But I don't like the fact that a piece of land could be in someone's family for generations and the govt comes in and takes it for not paying a tribute.

There has got to be a better option to encourage land to be productively utilized.
 
#214
#214
I was unaware that under utilized land was such a problem in the US. I will never support an idea that gives land the has been privately owned to the government
 
#216
#216
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I was unaware that under utilized land was such a problem in the US. I will never support an idea that gives land the has been privately owned to the government
Click to expand...

Yet, you support giving non-land property to the government, because you do support taxes. You just support taxes that are, by their very nature, discouraging to production.
 
#217
#217
While I generally think it's wise to seek answers from the smartest men in history for current problems, here is where I think the argument falls apart. Land ownership in Smith's day was the ultimate sign of wealth. He could not have envisioned a factory, sitting on 1 acre of land, generating billions in revenue. Likewise, he would have never dreamed a landowner with 100 acres of rich farmland would struggle to make ends meet.

If you think about it, the sales tax is the current version of Smith's ideas. It is a tax on all property and assets, at relative value at the point of sale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#218
#218
red butler said:
While I generally think it's wise to seek answers from the smartest men in history for current problems, here is where I think the argument falls apart. Land ownership in Smith's day was the ultimate sign of wealth. He could not have envisioned a factory, sitting on 1 acre of land, generating billions in revenue. Likewise, he would have never dreamed a landowner with 100 acres of rich farmland would struggle to make ends meet.

If you think about it, the sales tax is the current version of Smith's ideas. It is a tax on all property and assets, at relative value at the point of sale.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't Adam Smith have envisioned such things? He speaks to both factories and technological advancements replacing human labor.

Have you even read his treatise?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#219
#219
Adam Smith wanted to tax land because that was where the wealth of the day was concentrated. Today, the money is concentrated in compounding capital. The rate of return of capital is exceeding the rate of growth on income and output, as Pikkety discusses in his recent book.

Only taxing property at an exorbitant rate will do no good. You tax where the most money is.
 
Last edited:
#220
#220
How about we expand government businesses for profit so as to offset taxes and debt? I don't refer by this to public services, ie fire and police. But how about government owned restaurants, malls, movie theaters, insurance, groceries, etc.

If it works, we save tax dollars. If not, it will because private does it better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#222
#222
lawgator1 said:
How about we expand government businesses for profit so as to offset taxes and debt? I don't refer by this to public services, ie fire and police. But how about government owned restaurants, malls, movie theaters, insurance, groceries, etc.

If it works, we save tax dollars. If not, it will because private does it better.
Click to expand...

The government has had over 200 years to figure out how to run a post office. How are things going down at the VA?

How does the government "own" something? They have no money.

"If you put the federal government in control of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."

-Milton Friedman
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#223
#223
therealUT said:
Why couldn't Adam Smith have envisioned such things? He speaks to both factories and technological advancements replacing human labor.

Have you even read his treatise?
Click to expand...

Since I don't want to get into an argument over semantics with you, I will concede that I have no idea what Adam Smith envisioned for a future three centuries after his death.
 
#224
#224
JoeKyleVol said:
Adam Smith wanted to tax land because that was where the wealth of the day was concentrated. Today, the money is concentrated in compounding capital. The rate of return of capital is exceeding the rate of growth on income and output, as Pikkety discusses in his recent book.

Only taxing property at an exorbitant rate will do no good. You tax where the most money is.
Click to expand...

Funny, Smith never gives that as a reason.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top