Is it time for revolution?

#226
#226
therealUT said:
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).
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#227
#227
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...

Don't we already have that now with Amtrack and the US Postal Service? If they are not efficient, are you arguing that we should shut them down?
 
#228
#228
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.


-Abe Lincoln
 
#229
#229
OrangeWayOfLife said:
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.


-Abe Lincoln
Click to expand...

This sounds more like an argument for a very large central government/welfare state
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#232
#232
therealUT said:
Fyp
Click to expand...

I conceded that I wasn't an expert on Adam Smith, so why are you piling on by putting words in my mouth?

The gist of my original post was that times have changed. currently more capital flows through a cubicle on Wall Street than a farmer will ever see in his lifetime. The trader owns a condo in a skyscraper along with 700 other people on the same acre. Why would you put the majority of the burden for funding the gov. on the farmer?

And let's try to imagine this system after a couple of years. Agricultural imports will have increased dramatically because foreign governments aren't charging high taxes, American farmers can't compete with imports and the gov takes over all their land.

I guess the bright side would be we would have massive national parks while we try to fit as many people as possible into living on one acre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#234
#234
red butler said:
I conceded that I wasn't an expert on Adam Smith, so why are you piling on by putting words in my mouth?

The gist of my original post was that times have changed. currently more capital flows through a cubicle on Wall Street than a farmer will ever see in his lifetime. The trader owns a condo in a skyscraper along with 700 other people on the same acre. Why would you put the majority of the burden for funding the gov. on the farmer?

And let's try to imagine this system after a couple of years. Agricultural imports will have increased dramatically because foreign governments aren't charging high taxes, American farmers can't compete with imports and the gov takes over all their land.

I guess the bright side would be we would have massive national parks while we try to fit as many people as possible into living on one acre.
Click to expand...

Times have changed. So what?
 
#235
#235
OrangeWayOfLife said:
It seems obvious enough to me that, anything we can do on our own, the government need not interfere.
Click to expand...

There's many welfare programs that can be justified under that statement. The best example being social security because Americans are so bad at saving
 
#236
#236
therealUT said:
Times have changed. So what?
Click to expand...

When Adam Smith talked about property the the vast majority of wealth would have been encompassed in land. Now there is more capital traded in paper on Wall Street (let's say Wall Street is 50 acres for simplicity) than a 50 acre farm can produce in 1000 lifetimes. You would charge the farmer the same tax burden as every Wall Street trader, fund manager, and bank CEO combined.

In short, Yes times have changed. There's a big difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#237
#237
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...

It will stifle private "land grabs" too. I for one would sell out and rent. Let somebody else pay the taxes. Sure.. there might be a time when the rent would catch up, but if taxation were onerous, then what would be the point of home ownership? Deductibility?
 
#239
#239
red butler said:
And let's try to imagine this system after a couple of years. Agricultural imports will have increased dramatically because foreign governments aren't charging high taxes, American farmers can't compete with imports and the gov takes over all their land.
Click to expand...

Or another possible scenario would be we have an over-abundance because now more farms are being incentivized to be productive, and as a result, you get produce prices falling, which in turn makes it harder for some farmers make a profit and the gov takes over all their land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#240
#240
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...

Everybody'll grow weed, and the country will starve. Ironically, since they'll all have the munchies.
 
#241
#241
red butler said:
When Adam Smith talked about property the the vast majority of wealth would have been encompassed in land. Now there is more capital traded in paper on Wall Street (let's say Wall Street is 50 acres for simplicity) than a 50 acre farm can produce in 1000 lifetimes. You would charge the farmer the same tax burden as every Wall Street trader, fund manager, and bank CEO combined.

In short, Yes times have changed. There's a big difference.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of wealth is still, at its foundation, tied up in land.
 
#242
#242
SpaceCoastVol said:
Everybody'll grow weed, and the country will starve. Ironically, since they'll all have the munchies.
Click to expand...

Moving to cash crops will reduce the price one can get from said cash crop and increase the price one can get from staples. The market takes care of itself.
 
#243
#243
therealUT said:
Moving to cash crops will reduce the price one can get from said cash crop and increase the price one can get from staples. The market takes care of itself.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is someone needs to put up a Cheetos plant on their property to take care of that little problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#245
#245
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Reading comprehension? He clearly meant a staple farm
Click to expand...

Staples_store.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#247
#247
TRUT, live a little and don't be so serious.

But I do see your side of the debate here. I don't think it would work, but it's not necessarily a bad idea. It just gives too much control to the government over your property which can (and likely would) turn into something nasty over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#248
#248
therealUT said:
The vast majority of wealth is still, at its foundation, tied up in land.
Click to expand...

Maybe when you take into account that prime real estate in LA or NY is going for a million a square foot. But in your scenario, that prime real estate gets taxed at the same rate as swampland that is barely inhabitable. Face it, it's a bad idea unless you expand the definition of property to include financial instruments, intellectual property, and real estate etc. at an appraised value.
 
#249
#249
red butler said:
Maybe when you take into account that prime real estate in LA or NY is going for a million a square foot. But in your scenario, that prime real estate gets taxed at the same rate as swampland that is barely inhabitable. Face it, it's a bad idea unless you expand the definition of property to include financial instruments, intellectual property, and real estate etc. at an appraised value.
Click to expand...

No reason to expand, and, no, it's not mostly locked up in LA and Manhattan. Further, that real estate is being cultivated, as its being rented out and lived and worked in.

The vast majority of wealth in the US is tied up in land holdings. That's how it's always been, and how it most likely always will be.

Further, there is much land that is wholly unproductive. Everyone here mentions the farmer, but for the average farmer, their taxes are already de facto property taxes, in that it is foreseeable that if you banished income taxes and replaced them with property taxes, you might be able to do so without causing any decrease to the average farmer's take home income.

The persons that would be affected most would be the super-rich who currently sit on large tracts of land that is not in any way cultivated and who shelter what other assets they have in havens the US government cannot touch and the suburbanite who lives in a house that is too large for his family and has an enormous lawn.

Yet, for the latter, you are trading the income tax he pays for the property tax, thus, again, it is likely he's not very much negatively affected. However, he now faces a real dilemma: stay in the house and keep the status quo; use the land in a manner that does offset some of the taxes; or, sell and move to a smaller house and a smaller plot of land.

Thus, I still fail to see how you think this is necessarily a bad idea. If you merely think it could be implemented and executed poorly, we have no disagreement. Any idea, no matter how good or bad, can be poorly executed.
 
#250
#250
Grand Vol said:
TRUT, live a little and don't be so serious.

But I do see your side of the debate here. I don't think it would work, but it's not necessarily a bad idea. It just gives too much control to the government over your property which can (and likely would) turn into something nasty over time.
Click to expand...

I've spent the day sitting outside, enjoying unseasonably warm weather, eating, and sipping coffee while reading at an outdoor cafe. I've enjoyed the hell out of today.

I don't disagree that very stringent checks and very careful wording of legislation would be needed to keep the governed safe from the government. But, this is true of all legislative measures. The income tax has led to enormous increases in government control. This is not due to the idea of an income tax; it's due to shoddily written legislation. A consumption tax faces the same risk. As does a property tax.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top