Is it time for revolution?

#251
#251
Just curious, does anyone find fault with the valid (and, as I see it, sound) argument I posted? If so, what premises would one reject?
 
#252
#252
therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was damn nice weather today. Except for the normal allergies that Oklahoma seems to breed relentlessly.

therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're not going to get that kind of carefully worded legislation these days. Too many fingers in the pie, special interests, lobbyists and crooked politicians to make it viable.

Which is where the revolution comes into play.
 
#253
#253
Grand Vol said:
It was damn nice weather today. Except for the normal allergies that Oklahoma seems to breed relentlessly.



Unfortunately, you're not going to get that kind of carefully worded legislation these days. Too many fingers in the pie, special interests, lobbyists and crooked politicians to make it viable.

Which is where the revolution comes into play.
Click to expand...

A real revolution would most likely be catastrophic. The US was incredibly lucky at the end of the 18th century, not in beating the British but in actually being able to make something work.

Revolutions very often end in situations that are even worse. That's the norm, even when the leaders of the revolution are incredibly learned and wise men. We need sweeping and systematic change, but it must come slowly and it must come via Constitutional mechanisms. If not, we're ****ed.
 
#254
#254
With the property tax, you're only taxing a certain percentage of the population. One example I will give that I believe was mentioned earlier is hay. Being a cattle farmer offspring you must understand the need of hay for livestock especially in the winter time. Hay is very cheap, $20 a round bail here. So you have a ten acre field set aside for nothing but hay, which will not produce a lot for the record. You're gonna have pay taxes out the ying yang on the land that you NEED for low valued hay. This will begin a spiral effect that will cause many to start selling, with the tax situation, it's only logical to buy land if you're gonna make significant profits. So the market will be flooded with land but only a small, specialized group will be buying. When the people can't sell and can not afford the tax, it gets back into government hands. Essentially equalling a mass scale federal land grab. The sales tax is by and far the fairest way, every single person pays the same exact percentage.
 
#256
#256
therealUT said:
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...

I'll address this point only.

The government, as it stands right now and you acknowledge, controls far more property than it really needs. Typically in the western US, but still throughout the nation there are holding extremely valuable property that could and should be turning a serious profit for them. Even if they wanted to retain ownership of the property and lease out portions or even whole tracts for entrepreneurs to develop and/or cultivate (using your broad definition) they could still make a lot more money than taxation alone. Think about areas of California, Colorado and Oregon that could be leased as recreational areas and developed. Instead of having the Park Service (and in turn the taxpayer) build facilities and provide services, why not lease that land out with the caveat of "you build, provide and maintain ranger facilities until your lease is up and we'll bid the next round." Or logging leases in areas of Washington and Oregon. Or mineral leases in Colorado. So on and so forth.

But the problem comes in with the special interests that frequently come up and scream to the highest heavens. Take ANWAR as an example. That should be a killer money maker for the government. Lease tracts of land and charge a nominal fee per barrel of oil (even at a nickle a barrel, they will make a killing) sent out of that area. Makes sense, creates jobs, the government gets their money from the lease and the product, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Everyone is happy.

And why isn't this exact scenario playing out right now? Because some enviro-nazi is worried that the marshy bogs in ANWAR will be destroyed.

And furthermore, getting the government to give up power over anything? Not happening.
 
#257
#257
Grand Vol said:
It was damn nice weather today. Except for the normal allergies that Oklahoma seems to breed relentlessly.



Unfortunately, you're not going to get that kind of carefully worded legislation these days. Too many fingers in the pie, special interests, lobbyists and crooked politicians to make it viable.

Which is where the revolution comes into play.
Click to expand...

Exactly, more or less we need send everybody in Washington packing, no longer eligible for reelection, re-elect every position, instill a more simple, basic tax law, deem everyone covered by the bill of rights and keep the electoral college. Before this happens we would bring our entire military force to our homeland for protection while we make transition while some may see us as vulnerable. Focus on bringing manufacturing back within our borders and firmly securing our borders. State governments would not miss a beat and everyday life would carry on rather unchanged.
 
#258
#258
OrangeWayOfLife said:
With the property tax, you're only taxing a certain percentage of the population. One example I will give that I believe was mentioned earlier is hay. Being a cattle farmer offspring you must understand the need of hay for livestock especially in the winter time. Hay is very cheap, $20 a round bail here. So you have a ten acre field set aside for nothing but hay, which will not produce a lot for the record. You're gonna have pay taxes out the ying yang on the land that you NEED for low valued hay. This will begin a spiral effect that will cause many to start selling, with the tax situation, it's only logical to buy land if you're gonna make significant profits. So the market will be flooded with land but only a small, specialized group will be buying. When the people can't sell and can not afford the tax, it gets back into government hands. Essentially equalling a mass scale federal land grab. The sales tax is by and far the fairest way, every single person pays the same exact percentage.
Click to expand...

None of this is necessary. You continue to make your rebuttal based on your self-selected contingency that the tax would and must be some special number you have in your mind.
 
#259
#259
therealUT said:
None of this is necessary. You continue to make your rebuttal based on your self-selected contingency that the tax would and must be some special number you have in your mind.
Click to expand...

So are you going to tax each tract of land based on the income generated on the land, or tax every piece of land the same?
 
#260
#260
therealUT said:
A real revolution would most likely be catastrophic. The US was incredibly lucky at the end of the 18th century, not in beating the British but in actually being able to make something work.
Click to expand...

It had the unique quality of never having been tried. They took parts and pieces from other governments throughout history and melded them together into something that worked pretty well at the time.

But you are correct, a revolution/civil war in this nation today would be catastrophic. Not only for us, but for the remainder of the world as well. Just the economic factors alone would toss the world into turmoil.

therealUT said:
Revolutions very often end in situations that are even worse. That's the norm, even when the leaders of the revolution are incredibly learned and wise men. We need sweeping and systematic change, but it must come slowly and it must come via Constitutional mechanisms. If not, we're ****ed.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this to a limited extent.

The question that nobody asks is when is the right time for sweeping change as all else has failed. The old saying of soap box, ballot box and ammo box comes into play.
 
#261
#261
We can make sweeping change at the federal level without going into a frenzy/war. Power would be in the states, 10th amendment.

Another Abe quote :)

The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
 
#262
#262
OrangeWayOfLife said:
So are you going to tax each tract of land based on the income generated on the land, or tax every piece of land the same?
Click to expand...

The same. Currently, roughly 1,125 million acres of land are privately owned in the US. If the government taxed $1,000 an acre/year, the government would pull in over a trillion dollars in tax revenue.

I admit that $10,000 on 10 acres is oppressive. Let's imagine that if such a property tax scheme were implemented, private ownership would rise to 1,500. Further, let's assume government requires half a trillion a year to operate (these assumptions are less than I would expect in the first case and way more than what I see as necessary expenses in the second). Now, let's cut the tax to $335/acre. Over half a trillion in revenue.

For a farmer who farms 10 acres: $3,350 in total federal taxes. Again, what's the problem?
 
#263
#263
therealUT said:
The same. Currently, roughly 1,125 million acres of land are privately owned in the US. If the government taxed $1,000 an acre/year, the government would pull in over a trillion dollars in tax revenue.

I admit that $10,000 on 10 acres is oppressive. Let's imagine that if such a property tax scheme were implemented, private ownership would rise to 1,500. Further, let's assume government requires half a trillion a year to operate (these assumptions are less than I would expect in the first case and way more than what I see as necessary expenses in the second). Now, let's cut the tax to $335/acre. Over half a trillion in revenue.

For a farmer who farms 10 acres: $3,350 in total federal taxes. Again, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Those are fantasy world numbers. Total income tax revenue for 2014: 5.8 trillion
 
#264
#264
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Those are fantasy world numbers. Total income tax revenue for 2014: 5.8 trillion
Click to expand...

Total tax revenue from individuals and corporations was less than 1.5 trillion in 2014. I'm not sure where your 5.8 trillion number comes from. Hell, even adding in SS receipts, the total receipts for 2014 is just north of 3 trillion.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
 
#265
#265
#267
#267
The fair tax I'm implying would do away with all payroll taxes and be covered by the sales tax.

States would still have the option of income taxes or sales taxes, as many are divided now, voters choice. But at your 1000 acre figure, which we agreed was oppressive, would require scaling the federal government to 33% of it's current state.
 
Last edited:
#269
#269
OrangeWayOfLife said:
The fair tax I'm implying would do away with all payroll taxes and be covered by the sales tax.

States would still have the option of income taxes or sales taxes, as many are divided now, voters choice. But at your 1000 acre figure, which we agreed was oppressive, would require scaling the federal government to 33% of it's current state.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the government would need to be scaled back, based on my lowest grantable assumptions.
 
#270
#270
therealUT said:
You are correct, the government would need to be scaled back, based on my lowest grantable assumptions.
Click to expand...

I'm all for having a small government but I believe we spent $780 billion on the military last year, I could be way wrong but I feel I've seen that number. As I am for small government, and we could cut and great portion of that military spending out, I wouldn't want to deplenish our military either. To get to 1 trillion we'd have to cut military down to $500 billion and government to $500 billion and yet we'd still be paying around $1000/acre.
 
#271
#271
OrangeWayOfLife said:
The fair tax I'm implying would do away with all payroll taxes and be covered by the sales tax.

States would still have the option of income taxes or sales taxes, as many are divided now, voters choice. But at your 1000 acre figure, which we agreed was oppressive, would require scaling the federal government to 33% of it's current state.
Click to expand...

What federal sales tax percentage would be necessary to do this?
 
#272
#272
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I'm all for having a small government but I believe we spent $780 billion on the military last year, I could be way wrong but I feel I've seen that number. As I am for small government, and we could cut and great portion of that military spending out, I wouldn't want to deplenish our military either. To get to 1 trillion we'd have to cut military down to $500 billion and government to $500 billion and yet we'd still be paying around $1000/acre.
Click to expand...

Yes, but right now the average farmer pays, via income taxes, more than $1,000 per acre. I'm speaking of an ideal system and systematic changes, which would leave the government with only necessary expenses.

If we want to cover the bs expenses that are currently laid out, we can still tax between $1,500-2,000/acre, and most farmers, with more than 10 acres, are already paying this.

I think that's oppressive. I think sending more than 10% of one's wealth to the government is oppressive.
 
#275
#275
therealUT said:
Just curious, does anyone find fault with the valid (and, as I see it, sound) argument I posted? If so, what premises would one reject?
Click to expand...

Despite the spirited debate, I will say it's an interesting proposal. I personally feel the income tax is the most burdensome tax for the general population, so it's nice to see alternatives.

I think it would need tweaking to encompass additional asset classes though. Otherwise, the wealthy would just change their investment strategy and dump land.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top