out of the box thought on taxes

I think it sad that people just can't talk, Althow I think Troianii asked his question in a way that would incourage discussion.
BTW from a business owners point of view, I have had both union and non union companys, with the union I only had to explain that I was broke once every two years

 

Discussion is great, and like you when I get an opinion expressed about which I know nothing I check it out. I also learn from opinions like that.

 

Well, DUH! They own most of the good land and thus internalize the value of public spending on infrastructure. Want to live or have a business near convenient infrastructure? Pay a landowner for it. I lost count on how many times you've unwittingly refuted yourself in this thread.

 

There are better ways of doing that then changing a mature economy to an LVT; like a progressive personal income tax. Haven't you learned anything over the last few days? All of my stated opinions stand un-refuted thus far, and certainly none from the weak Geoist presentations offered on this thread.

 

A progressive personal income tax won't change that. You just want it to continue at all costs because that's your retirement money. But it's a step from you in the right direction that you've essentially conceded that landowners pocket other people's taxes. And that after you've been fighting for so many pages that landowners deserve everything they get. Do you think landowners deserve other people's taxes?

The worst part is that you don't even realize that you've just refuted yourself. And now you're going to go off on some irrelevant tangent again.

What I've learned though is not to trust any "economics expert" who quotes Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises especially when they claim to have taught tax incidence but clearly don't understand that a tax on something with perfectly inelastic supply can't be passed on and has no deadweight loss.

Sayonara!

 

You know nothing about me or my retirement money, which will not be affected negatively if an LVT was enacted tomorrow. But it would destroy our economy UNLESS all land owners were fully compensated for their land.

If I thought for a moment landowners got other people's tax money I may support some small local LVT, but they don't so I won't.

That sir is bullcrap. I did not refute anyone but some dead head Geoist theories which won't work in a mature economy, and I have done that many times and totally.

I have forgotten more about tax incidence and economics than you will ever learn. Why don't you start discussing a subject of which you are familiar? You obviously don't know economics. Why not post some more of your bullcrap and rudeness so I can put you in your place on the morrow?

Goodnight and good riddance.

 

Yeah, of course he is.

Hello?

Clearly a 10% maximum tax on retail sales in 4,000 billion dollar economy is more than enough to finance a defense oriented military that isn't also playing Global Cop..

It's not complicated. Stop paying the indolent to vote RAT, stop paying countries that hate us to like us, stop paying for federal education subsidies, stop all entitlements, resume the novel idea that sovereign states have sovereign duties, and stop letting adults pretend they're giant babies. Does Obama really have 65,000,000 children? Clinton might, if he wasn't sterile, but that couldn't be said of King Obama.

(Clinton's sterility: It's pretty obvious that Webb Hubbell, not Bill Rapist Clinton, spawned Chelsea)

 

But you do.

You earned the money to buy the land, didn't you? Just because you're sitting on your ass now does not mean you haven't earned your income.

What part of "your land" confuses you?

Or are you posting from the 18th century in Ireland and you stole the land you claim to own?

 

You're a riot. One post ago you conceded that landowners internalize the value of public spending on infrastructure. What do you think finances that public spending? Santa Claus? I'll let you wallow in your own self contradictions from now on although I'll miss the entertainment you provide. Sayonara, officially.

 

You mean property taxes? Gasoline taxes? The higher property taxes when the road comes in? Those are all ways to internalize costs an they are paid by the landowners next to the road and the people who drive on them. What is the problem with that?

 

Are you so obtuse that you can't admit that taking advantage of infrastructure works in more than LVT circumstances? Really?

One other thing, your rudeness is why people talk down to you. You do it to yourself and you deserve it. I have civil discussions with people with different opinions every day, but for some reason you and your cronies seem to be incapable of expressing your selves without being nasty about it.

Opinions can be expressed in a positive manner without all the rancor. Everyone has acknowledged that under some circumstances LVT can be used to advantage; but it is not the panacea you Geoists seem to think it is. The problems attempting to institute an LVT in a mature economy outnumber the advantages Geoists seem to believe it has. For example, there is no way that land will ever be nationalized in a free country which believes in the right to private property. That dog simply won't hunt in spite of all the clamor by some of you to do just that.

In so far as the rich getting more value from the infrastructure than the poor, this is what justifies a progressive income tax, not an LVT.

An LVT will not fairly raise all of the revenue needed to operate government at all levels, ergo even if we instituted it at the local level in some immature market, we would still end up with all the other forms of tax we now have and the LVT would just turn out to be an increase in an already bloated tax system.

Now, if you want to discuss LVT or any other subject in a civil manner be my guest. If you and your cronies want to continue to make asses of yourselves I will continue to laugh as you stumble all over you ignorance. I might add, my experience in discussions is that those who are belligerent as you guys are tend to know very little about the subject under discussion, and I believe this goes double for you and your buds.

 

A key component of Socialism is State ownership of all land in addition to ownership or control of manufacturing and distribution. The first stage of Socialism is the nationalism of land such that the state can manage all land. Smacks a lot of some fanatics desires for LVT who want the land confiscated without due compensation to the current owners of that land.

 

So, what objection can there be to only artificial persons of wealth being burdened with an income tax whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates on real persons?

 

What do you mean by wartime tax rates?

 

That's a lie, because you've already admitted you're using a land title to take other people's money while contributing nothing in return.

That's just stupid "sky-is-falling" garbage with no basis in fact.

They most certainly do. All government spending on desired services and infrastructure that isn't wasted through incompetence or stolen through corruption is given to landowners. That's why land costs so much. The productie are taxed to pay for desired services and infrastructure, and must than pay landowners for access to the services and infrastructur their taxes just paid for. The value of land simply measures how much of other people's taxes the landowner can expect to pocket.

It is fact. WHY ELSE IS LAND WORTH SO MUCH?

LOL! Your claims -- and Rothbard's -- have already been exposed as absurd, dishonest garbage.

ROTFL!!! Well, you have certainly forgotten more than YOU ever learned...

I'm very familiar with economics and taxes, thanks, having read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation.

He knows it better than you.

LOL! Armor for Sleep has owned you thoroughly.

 

Meaningless gibberish.

People don't talk down to me. They often lie about what I have plainly written, but they don't talk down to me. They know instinctively how unseemly it would be to talk down to their incomparable moral and intellectual superior.

Despicable.

Not with people who prove your beliefs are false and evil, you don't.

No, you just can't stand having the truth identified in plain English, because you have realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

And that's exactly what we do... right up until the lies start. Which is typically in the other side's first response.

Speaking of lies, no one has made any such claim except the anti-geoists, lying about what geoists have plainly said.

You have yet to identify a single significant difficulty that has not already been thoroughly addressed.

1. We do not advocate nationalizing land. Strike One.
2. There is no such thing as a free country with private property in land. That is a contradiction in terms. Strike Two.
3. The right to private property can never extend to land, as that inherently abrogates others' right to liberty. That's Strike Three, dumpling. You're out.

Any time anyone speaks of the rich as being defined by their incomes, that person is intent on deceit.

The fact is, the benefit one gets from government spending on services and infrastructure is measured by land value owned, not income. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH.

Garbage with no basis in fact. That's like claiming following a healthy diet won't work because it will just be added to all the other food people eat. It's just stupid, evil, dishonest filth.

We are very prepared to be civil... if you are prepared to be honest. How about it?
...
Thought not.

We have already proved we know the subject incomparably better than you.

 

Admitted? I told you and I am proud of it and I deserve it and there is nothing wrong with it because I PAID FOR THE LAND I RENT OUT.

Taking personal land without compensation is the first step of socialism. Its called nationalism and it is a form of tyranny.

That is a lot of hoakum and is way off from the true values of LVT.

Its value tends to come from what it is used for and is most productive when not controlled by government.

Not in your lifetime and not by anyone who understands the issues.

You will never learn as much as I forgot today alone. You are simply not smart enough.

And you still spout this garbage? Apparently you don't retain what you read even if you understood it.

Neither you nor any of your cronies understand anything about real economics. Your heads are too wound up in fallacies of thought.

He hasn't got the sense to own himself, much less anyone else. I think he is almost as ignorant as you.

Now, I will tell you what I told him, if you want to discuss the subject, do so civilly, or you will continue to get put down like a gnat. Belligerent persons like you tend to be belligerent because they are ignorant. Get a life and learn something, anything, even if its wrong.

 

You have stated a fabrication.

Idiotic lie.

Anti-economic absurdity.

Facts of objective physical reality cannot be deleted by calling them theology, sorry.

 

Of course. He is still taking from the productive and not contributing anything in return, just like you. The fact that he is disabled does not make him any less a parasite than you.

 

If you consider idle ownership to be the criterion of what people rightly deserve.

At least you agree that the landowner takes from the productive and does not contribute anything in return.

In precisely the same sense -- i.e., legally -- that based solely on ownership, the legal owner of a slave was due the wages that the slave earned by his compelled labor.

That does not alter the fact that we are being robbed.

No he isn't. He is still paying a landowner for nothing.

While the landowner pocketed half the harvest for doing nothing. Thanks for admitting it.

How ironic. The USA is on the same path to ruin by landowner privilege that a dozen other civilizations have trod, and you're telling us to wake up and smell the coffee...

Or a slave owner, or the owner of a license to steal...?

 

Garbage. Rent seeking is not earning.

Garbage. Rent seeking harms the economy. I'd have thought the GFC would have made you willing to know that fact. But noooooooo.....

There may be more evil things a human being can do than to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit by it. I just can't think of one right at the moment.

There is nothing honest about getting rich through privilege and plunder rather than productive contribution.

 

Ultimately, by forcible appropriation that abrogates others' rights.

Nope. No such incentive would arise. People would instead have an incentive to use land to its highest potential, making development more compact.

Nope. It's stupid to try to dodge a tax that is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. Do you live out in the desert to dodge paying rent?

 

Nope. None do. They all just charge what the market will bear. Their costs are irrelevant, except insofar as they had better control them if they seek to remain in business.

Nope. It's what the market will bear. No less, and not one cent more. Cost has nothing whatever to do with it.

We expect the landowning "enterprise" not to endure.

We expect the landowner to cease his parasitic "business."

 

No, it depends on how good the land is.

Nonsense. Lots of people do it and find it very practical.

Flat false.

I am entirely unimpressed with what you imagine typical geoists want LVT to do.

Yes, it most certainly does. Nothing can stop it.

Meaningless anti-economic gibberish.

 

Do I get to pay no taxes I I do?