out of the box thought on taxes

No, it's actually inferior to that of people who don't know anything about it.

That must explain the homeless, and all the real estate bilionaries....

They are here now, and they own most of the country.

Which I've already pointed out is nothing.

A "viable" tax that raises no more revenue than enough to "compensate" greedy parasites. Riiiiight.

ROTFL!

 

The homeless just need to produce their own land like wealth creating real estate billionaires do. It's really a non issue solved by hard work and dedication.

 

I'm just reminding you that I am incomparably your intellectual as well as your moral superior, and that you have nothing to offer, so you are making stupid claims about my reading comprehension that you know are false.

You have to resort to stupid, dishonest garbage that you know is false. Inevitably.

Lie. In post #358 in this thread, you said: "if they set the price to cover their costs, and add some for a profit, and somebody pays that price for the land..." That's you asking me to imagine that a stupidly overpriced asset can be sold for however much its owner wishes.

Why do you humiliate yourself by lying about what you plainly wrote?

 

But we did not say all rent seeking is landowning. We said all landowning is rent seeking. And he denied it, and offered his definition in argument, even though his definition proves we are correct. Like him, you are just so completely ignorant of elementary logic that you think a statement that all apologists for landowner privilege are stupid, evil, lying sacks of $#!+ is logically equivalent to a statement that all stupid, evil, lying sacks of $#!+ are apologists for landowner privilege.

No, he proved he doesn't understand any economics whatever. He doesn't know what rent seeking is -- he didn't even recognize the term, and thought it had something to do with people buying apartment buildings -- and he doesn't know how elasticities determine tax incidence.

Nope. Like him you are flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective fact. Tax incidence -- which you could Google to advantage -- is a term used to DESCRIBE who actually pays a tax -- ANY tax.

ROTFL!! Another economic ignoramus! "the price of supply is elastic" is meaningless pseudo-economic gibberish.

And when supply is fixed, the consumer pays none of the tax.

Again, you prove your ignorance of economics by your assumption that tax incidence is only defined for corporate income tax.

Example? Thought not.

Unless supply is perfectly inelastic.

That's not even a sentence, and is therefore meaningless gibberish.

Also meaningless gibberish, as it is not a sentence.

ROTFL!

He has demonstrated infinitely better understanding of economics than you, as proved above.

Wrong.

No, he knows exactly what they are, and so do you, but you are trying to pretend they are not what they are.

But most land is not owned by small-time landowners. That's a little detail you "forgot."

No, he just does things a little differently. He still gets rich for doing nothing, the productive still get robbed, and the poor still have no right to exist.

No, we are stating it explicitly, because it could never rightly have become "their" land in the first place.

Garbage with no supporting evidence whatever. You are merely invoking the bogeyman.

Flat false.

It is landowners who have been stealing the rightful private property of the productive.

No, it does not. It shows that perfectly inelastic supply means no deadweight loss from taxation.

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you. He posted the RELEVANT graph, and the IRRELEVANT graphs you falsely and dishonestly claim he needs to post are in fact IRRELEVANT.

He understands it perfectly, and so do you, and that is why you are lying about it.

Yes, it most certainly does, because it proves LVT has no deadweight loss.

 

To be gutted like a fish for his ignorance of economics...

Says the guy who doesn't know what rent seeking is (didn't even recognize the term!) and doesn't know how elasticities determine tax incidence.

 

ROTFL!

I.e., you oppose LVT because you are an apologist for landowner privilege and parasitism.

Because their "property" is effectively a license to steal.

But who, like you, cannot provide any factual or logical basis for said disagreement.

That is a bald fabrication, as proved here:

See? Compensation is rightly for improvements only, and that is stated explicitly. You just flat-out lied about what those Nobel laureate economists plainly said.

All apologists for landowner privilege and parasitism lie. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

Again, and contrary to your lie, no compensation for the land is advocated or contemplated.

All modern LVT proposals that I am aware of include provisions to restore the equal human right to liberty that landowning removes by extending a flat, universal individual LVT exemption (or, second best, an equivalent citizens' dividend) to ensure that people have the right to sustain their own lives without paying for it.

That is another bald fabrication.

No, most mainstream economists are concerned that LVT threatens their privileged, parasitic paymasters, and thus their gravy train.

 

False. LVT is a way to tax PRIVILEGE rather than PRODUCTION. And that is why you hate and fear it, and will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER to try to malign and derogate it. You are an absolutely committed lickspittle of privilege, parasitism and injustice.

Defining progressivity relative to income rather than ability to pay is deceitful garbage.

Sure they do: there is no reason to suppose that one's fair share of taxes is determined by income, as income taxation does not meet either of the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy: ability to pay and beneficiary pay.

LOL! Maybe because capitalism is all about the privilege and parasitism of rich, greedy takers, and the lickspittles of capitalist privilege and parasitism favor income tax's effect of preventing the most able of the productive from accumulating the assets needed to offer competition to privileged, unproductive parasites.

We've already ascertained it: zero. Alternatively, all their assets could be confiscated without compensation, and they could be given a framed picture of a guillotine to remind them of how mercifully they have been treated.

Everyone occupies land. What you really want is a means to steal from producers and give the money to rich, greedy, parasitic landowners in return for nothing.

LVT is automatically progressive, as it requires payment in proportion to the value of land one monopolizes, and falls entirely on those who own the land at the time it is enacted.

Certainly. But only to honest people who are willing to know facts.

 

He is continuing the tradition of landowner privilege and parasitism.

And your point would be...? That's the market telling him he is not the most productive person to be using that resource. Someone else will gladly pay the LVT on it. Funny how evil, lying apologists for capitalist greed, privilege and parasitism are all for the market, until it results in rich, greedy takers no longer getting something for nothing.

 

If you want their land just buy it and be glad the seller has it available and it wasn't put into production before you got there. Plenty of dirt cheap undeveloped land.

You have a problem when land benefits from infrastructure, should government pay people then for partial takings? Zoning changes for instance. Or is fairness a one way street?

Why do you think land is such a measure of value in a modern economy? Is google not more valuable then the largest farm?

Won't this shift economic activity from "wide business to tall ones" basically, from manufacturing and farming to office jobs?

 

Are you the one who wants others to pay and give up property to pay for your goals? Aren't you feeding off landowners?

Ability to pay and beneficiary pay? Please go on. The flat consumption tax excepted for necessities is surely the most accurate way to get to "ability to pay". Is it not?

 

I see you cut off the actual subject of the posting so that you could create your STRAWMAN. As can be plainly seen, the subject of the posting was MARKET PRICE, but you had to make the posting about yourself... AGAIN.

You had delusionally hallucinated: "They can't get more than the market price, no matter how much of their costs they futilely try to recoup by raising their prices." To which I replied: "And if they set the price to cover their costs, and add some for a profit, and somebody pays that price for the land, then that is the market price."

All of your overhype, buffoonery, and delusions of grandeur will not change this fact. And, since you cut off the actual subject of the posting to create your STRAWMAN, I can see that it is not a reading comprehension problem that you have, it is an intellectual dishonesty problem. You are just going to have to face up to the obvious fact that you have been bested many times in this thread by posters of superior intellect, and you will have to take a back seat and let the thread continue on without you.

You will not be missed!



.

 

Yes, under state laws some federally prohibited drugs are legal which means that as far as State law enforcement they're legal. It would fall to federal law enforcement to enforce the federal laws.

Apparently the term "apportioned" as applied to taxation in the US Constitution isn't understood. "Apportioned" taxes are based upon the population and are not based upon land valuation or the size of the state. For example the federal government could impose a $250 tax on every resident of the United States but cannot impose a $250 tax on some people and no tax on other persons. The "apportioned" tax must be identical for everyone in the United States. The 16th Amendment on incomes removed the "apportionment" requirement for taxation but only on incomes.

A land value tax by the federal government would require a Constitutional Amendment and that is never going to happen. Three-fourths of the States (as required by Article V of the Constitution) would never ratify a LVT Amendment.

 

It was noted, by Congressman Crumpacker, in the Congressional Record: "...the power granted to the federal Government to impose a direct tax was granted upon condition that the Government should estimate the amount of revenue it might require from that source and apportion the sum among the States on the basis of population as shown by the preceding census. This plan was intended to give the States the right to contribute their pro rata share from their own revenues without complicating their local systems of taxation. This was regarded as a matter of much importance to the States. A direct tax imposed upon the same property by two different governments might involve embarrassment and unnecessary expense in enforcement. It was believed that the General Government would secure adequate revenues for ordinary purposes from customs and excise taxes, and would only have occasion to levy direct taxes in great national exigencies. With the power to levy and collect direct taxes vested in the Federal Government it was thought that the States would increase their local levies and pay their respective shares, and to enable them to do so the per capita basis of apportionment was fixed." — Congressional Record - House of Representatives 18 March 1912 pg 3574

The direct tax is apportioned to the States to pay, not the inhabitants of the States. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States!

POSTING



.

 

No you haven't. You've, *ahem*, "fabricated" tall tales that a land value tax will not cost US producers anything, your assertion that a land value tax will make it harder than it currently is for foreign companies to compete in the US has been "disproven," and you really have only proven that you've got your head in a hole and aren't willing to discuss facts like a rationale human being because you're so far behind a tax system that you believe it's the best no matter what angle one can look at it, unwilling to acknowledge it's drawbacks.

 

Maybe you misunderstand the question still. The question wasn't which comprehensive tax system you would prefer, it's which tax system (using only one, i.e. income tax, corporate tax, sales tax etc.) would be best for US global competition. What you've been arguing is basically what you feel is most right, not in any relation to the op. please start your own thread. pm me when you do and I'll participate in a discussion of what kind of single (or comprehensive) tax system is most moral, or 'seems most right to me.'

 

I'm sure that everyone knows that any member of Congress can enter anything they want in the Congressional Record and that such entries have zero legal status. Congress does not have the authority to interprete the US Constitution as that is reserved for the US Supreme Court. Congress only has an obligation to comply with the US Constitution and has a dismal record in doing so based upon the number of laws that have been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the past.

 

Roy made that claim and insulted me when I told it it did not necessarily relate to landowners. Even what you do claim is wild and tends to have no relevance to real economic situations. I have wasted enough time with you LVT people.

- - - Updated - - -

I have wasted enough time on the ignorant like you.

 

I believe that the issue of "fairness" in the tax system is highly relevant to the initial question. We cannot impose a higher tax burden on the individual to subsidize enterprise. Global competiveness has little meaning if the workers suffer a lower standard of living by carrying an unfair tax burden to subsidize the owners of enterprise.

The actual tax system becomes irrelevant so long as it is fair to everyone equally.

It can based upon numerous different criteria though although some are more problematic than others. We have, under the 16th Amendment predominately addressed federal taxation based upon income but income doesn't measure wealth (assets minus liabilities). We could base it upon wealth but wealth (assets minus liabilities) is very hard to quantify. We could base it on consumption but that doesn't take into account income or wealth.

Ultimately it isn't the form of the tax that is important so long as the tax burden is fair but instead its the amount of the tax burden that is imposed on both individuals and enterprise. There are political and social issues that have driven the US budget to astronomical heights and each can and should be addressed to reduce the overall tax burden.

The cost of the United States military interventionism in world affairs is responsible for a significant tax burden on Americans. While it benefits the defense industrial complex it imposes over $800 billion annual in an additional "tax burden" above and beyond "defense of the nation" even though about 1/2 of that isn't funded and paid for with deficit spending on present and future Americans. This is a "political power" issue where we have elected politicans that want the United States to dominate the world affairs. If we don't end the spending being used exclusively for "world political power" by our government then we can't reduce the spending and tax burden it imposes on America.

The costs of mitigating the effects of poverty with welfare programs creates a huge financial tax burden equal to about $1.5 trillion per year. We can't ignore the problem of poverty and the need to mitigate the effects of poverty but the actual problem of poverty has yet to be addressed.

Both Social Security and Medicare were created to mitigate the effects of poverty for retirement age individuals but neither addressed the problem of why people end up in poverty when they become too old to work. Instead of addressing the problem identified in the 1930's that about 1/2 of the "retirees" didn't have the personal wealth accumulation (assets) to provide income at retirement for living expenses and medical insurance the Congress created welfare programs to mitigate the fact that the people didn't accumulate assets (wealth) to fund their retirement years. We're spending roughly $1 trillion per year on Social Security and Medicare and that cost is going up daily and will continue to rise. That imposes a tax burden on America to fund these welfare programs because the welfare only mitigates the effects of the poverty. If we don't resolve the problem then we cannot eliminate the need to mitigate the effects of the problem with government spending.

We spend about $500 billion per year to fund welfare programs mitigate the effects of poverty for working age individuals but we're not addressing why these people are in poverty. Most of these individuals are either women or racial minorities where we have documentation of discrimination against them in employment and compensation. If we want to address the problem of why they're in poverty then we need to address the discrimination against them in employment and compensation. If we could somehow resolve the problem of race and gender discrimination in America then most of these individuals would not be living in poverty and would not require assistance to mitigate the effects of the poverty. If we don't resolve the problem then we cannot eliminte the need to mitigte the effects of the problem with government spending.

Cutting the tax burden by addressing the problems, political and social, that generate the need for the spending is the issue when it comes to making America more competitive globally.

It isn't the tax system but instead its the tax burden that is ultimately the problem.

 

The question is easily understood.

The premise of the question is wrong.

There is no tax system that will impact our ability to compete globally.

Absent controls that require imported products to meet the same requirements as US manufactured products it is not possible to compete effectively using us facilities and Us labor.

The suggestions I made would serve to increase investment which could be used to make companies more efficient, develop more products, enhance worker productivity all of which would serve to increase competitive capabilities.

both corporate and individual tax rates were higher 40 years ago when the US controlled more than 50% of international trade and all of that trade accounted for less than 10% of GDP.

 

So, what does all that have to do with the fact that direct taxes are apportioned to the States to pay, and that government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States?

 

All this talk about what kind of tax policy would be best to make the US more competitive in the global environment is futile, at best. The REAL discussion should be about how long it is going to take for the US to regress to the level of economic equality of those with which we trade in the global environment. So long as there is such a disparity between economic systems, a free trade environment will work to the detriment of the advanced economic system, as has already been witnessed in this country.

 

A "direct tax" is a tax that is imposed directly on the person and, except for income taxes, any "direct tax" on the person imposed by Congress must be an apportioned tax under Article I Section 8. A federal tax imposed on the State based upon apportionment is not a "direct tax on the person" as the State could resort to any taxation is uses based upon the State Constitution to meet the federal tax obligation imposed.

 

I think I've read all of Roy's posts in this thread. He never made that claim. You are very confused.

Instead of addressing our claim that landowning is a form rent seeking you just make comments like the above. All you have to do is explain what benefits the landowner reciprocates back to society through wealth creation in return for the payments he gets for the land, minus payments for improvements, and you're off the hook, according to the definition you provided. You dodged it the first time I asked you.

 

This is really a an unsupported poppycock opinion. At best it is based upon economic relativism where the economies of other nations improve at a faster rate than that of the United States until they reach a point were they are equal and could actually surpass the US economy.

We still have huge economic advances that aren't being addressed because we have crony capitalism and denial of equality of economic opportunity in the United States today.

Crony capitalism where "investors" are taxed at roughly 1/2 the rate of "workers" in America has a dramatic negative impact on our economy. At the federal level of taxation the worker has roughly double the tax burden relative to income when compared to investors and at the state level of taxation the workers can have up to 16-times the tax burden relative to income when compared to high income individuals. If the tax burden relative to income was the same for all Americans it would substantially increase the average standard of living, result in higher domestic consumption, and the economy would expand dramatically to meet the demand for goods and services.

Denial of equality in employment and compensation results in the labor resources of American not being fully exploited to the maximum possible extent. Additionally it drives the need to mitigate the effects of poverty it creates which imposes a much higher tax burden on America and that tax burden depresses economic expansion in the United States.

 

Your view is valid, but not what I was trying to address in this thread. Maybe I was just a bit unclear.

As I've said more than once in this thread, I don't think the effect of taxes on global trade is the most important measure of our tax system, but I believe that it is certainly a valid and important measure. What you've said in bold is true, but I think you entirely miss the point of what I've been saying in the thread. The key point is this: our current tax system gives an edge to foreign companies. (not that you do but) You can't dismiss this fact and then complain about outsourcing.

- - - Updated - - -

^not worth my time