out of the box thought on taxes

I am not sure what you mean, in any at-will employment State. Why not simply bear true witness to our own doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will; and solve for the inefiency of a natural rate of unemployment engendered by Capitalism.

 

High unemployment is a positive for the purely capitalist system as it drives down wages.
The response within this system is for labor to organize to negotiate the commodity called labor to the highest bidder.
There will be a fight within government between the capitalist forces and the labor forces as each try to use government to enforce their specific goals.
The real danger occurs when either gains too much power.

that said, I'm afradi I don't understand your direction.

 

Cool, but how does all that engender a moral of true witness bearing to our own supreme law of the land; ostensibly, for the greater glory of our immortal souls?

 

An extract from Murray Rothbard's critique of the "single tax system" (LVT) Georgists claim would work.

 

LVT REDUCES the cost of production by improving allocative efficiency and eliminating taxes that bear on production.

They will pay $X in land value tax instead of paying both $X in land rent and $Y in taxes.

You aren't paying attention. People pay land rent because they want the advantages of good locations. LVT doesn't change the land rent. It just changes who gets it.

The "rate of land value tax" is rather irrelevant. The point is to recover the full publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit. The land value tax should recover that much, and can't recover any more.

With LVT, people would have no more reason to use cheap land than they do now. They'd be paying exactly the same amount for land, for exactly the same reason: its advantages. They'd just be paying the government and community for making that land advantageous, rather than paying a landowner for doing nothing, and paying taxes on top of that so government could make the land advantageous to the landowner.

 

Demand comes first then comes value, genius. Think that over for a second and realize how absolutely ridiculous what you just wrote is. Moving into the Boonies? WTF? People want good locations that's why they have value in the first place. With higher demand for a location the LVT will be higher. With lower demand for a location the LVT will be lower. If anything the LVT will reduce such sprawl. Not even one sentence you wrote makes sense, except for maybe the "when something adds to the cost of production, the product costs more to produce" part. That was mind blowing. Thanks, genius. Good that the LVT eases the tax burden on production. You also can't charge more LVT than the highest bid otherwise it wouldn't be LVT any more.

 

Only fools believe that a business can sell its products for whatever price suffices to cover its costs.

Only fools also believe that a business paying $X in land value tax to government rather than $X in land rent to a private landowner AND $Y in taxes to government represents an increase in its production costs.

Yes. And just as many liars.

False. It bears entirely on the landowner, and thus leaves the poor entirely untaxed.

While a steeply progressive income tax that bears mainly on very high incomes does have the merit of mostly falling on economic rent, it is inferior to a tax that falls ONLY on economic rent.

Garbage. Property tax punishes improvement, taxing what the owner contributes to the wealth of the community. LVT, by contrast, taxes what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner. Only a fool can be unaware of which of those should rightly be taxed and which should not.

Nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to make any such compensation. If a city abolishes its taxi medallions, is it obliged to compensate those taxi operators who have bought them "in good faith," thus shouldering "speculative costs"? The whole point of speculation is that you take a risk. You are saying the taxpayer should indemnify speculators against speculative risk. Such claims are absurd and outrageous.

 

We have proved there is. Read the thread.

 

LVT is regressive, that must be why real estate moguls hate land taxes so much, huh. That must be why the absence of LVT allowed them to milk the economy dry. As for taxes on improvements being better than taxes on the unimproved value of land, spoken like a true land speculator, lol. Shift the tax burden onto production and just idly twiddle your thumbs while the value of your land rises without contributing jack (*)(*)(*)(*) to the economy.

 

Capitalism is always carefully guarded by rent seekers like land speculators and other scum who are nothing but a drain on the economy.

 

Rothbard shattered Georgian theories. When examined rationally at the core, Georgism (Geosim) is nothing more than another form of Marxism-lite. I have seen Geoist argue that because everything in existence is a product of land and like land, all natural resources are equally owned by all. Thus, my oak desk is not really mine (oak is a natural resource) but like the land I live on should be equally owned by all. Of course, these are the most extreme sects of the theory. In any case the theory does not hold up to scrutiny.

For Rothbard's full critique, read Man, Economy and State.

 

Roy just went through his arguments like a hot knife through butter.

If it's anything like what I read a page ago, no thanks.

 

Read for context next time. Nothing I said even suggests demand doesn't come first, and someone else said producers will just buy cheap land. And if you can't charge enough LVT to meet the needs of the government, then it fails its purpose. And you're wrong, LVT will encourage sprawl

 

Property taxes happen to be one of the most regressive of all taxes because it imposes a flat tax on a basic necessity. We all require a "roof over our heads" and this is a fundamental necessity. Regardless of whether a person is a home owner or a renter they pay the property tax (i.e. the property tax is included in the rental charge by the property owner). Of course there is a point where we transition from a "basic necessity" to a "luxury" related to a "roof over our head" but the property tax doesn't make that distinction. What we can say, without actually establishing a dollar amount for the cost of the necessity, is that the property tax imposes a greater tax burden relative to income for the low income individual than it does for a high income individual because the "cost of the necessity" is the same for both but the income for each is vastly different.

It is also somewhat ironic that the federal government imposes such a high tax on income that if it wasn't for the "withholding" of income to pay the tax most Americans wouldn't be able to pay it on April 15th. If everyone had to write a check on April 15th to pay their income taxes there would be a tax revolt. The "withholding tax" also allows the government to spend money that it shouldn't even have. The federal government is spending the tax revenues it receives today, in 2013, that aren't "due" until April 15, 2014 and that are collected to fund federal expendatures for the 2015 federal budget. The "withholding tax" has fundamentally allowed the federal government to spend money up to two years in advance. If we ended the withholding tax the government would go bankrupt overnight because it doesn't have the money required to pay for current expendatures. Its using money being collected for the 2015 budget to pay for 2013 expendatures.

 

Will a more powerful government get rid of that or expand it?

 

The "Withholding Tax" was a scheme devised by Beardsly Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and President of Macy's Department Store in New York. In August, 1942, Milton Friedman, an economist with the Treasury Department, and Mr. Ruml, spoke before a subcommittee of the Committee On Finance of the United States Senate. Mr. Friedman agreed that since an inflation problem was inevitable and upcoming, due to the expansion of the economy to accommodate the war effort, it was important that the "withholding tax" be implemented to withdraw money from the marketplace to ease the inflation problem. Workers would not have this money to spend, and it would be sent back to the Treasury Department. This was implemented along with the "Victory Tax".

 

Ahh the withholding tax. Thankfully Friedman didn't stay a socialist for all of his life. Can you imagine the damage that kind of mind could do heading down the wrong path? He later rationalized it by saying well it keeps people out of tax liability and the targets of the IRS but I like your analysis better. As a fisherman I get to pay all my taxes at once without penalty, farmers have a similar carve out because of the seasonal nature of our business. (Not that any other seasonal businesses get it), it is painful to send it all once. We always need something to improve the business and that tax money can buy a lot. My weekly taxes are nothing to laugh at though, they cost employees quite a bit. Hidden taxes that discriminate against labor are almost as bad as the ones they let you see on your paycheck.

 

I don't believe that the "power" of government is the issue but instead how extensively or limited the use of that power is. Our biggest problem today seems to be that the government has few constraints related to limiting the use of the powers granted to it. It isn't the "power" but the "abuse of power" that is of primary concern.

 

When you have the power to make people rich at the stroke of a pen and you get your job by begging for campaign money there will always be abuses of whatever power are available. Inertia will keep these abuses in play for a long time. Bit by bit each drop of water will form a canyon.

 

Who is we.

Whatever proofs "offered" have been refuted.

I'm not discussing your tax "theology" but the reality of how a business becomes more competitive.

The US didn't lose the first rounds of the car wars because Japanese cars were cheaper. We lost because Japanese cars were better and offered more value. ford's success over the last 5 years is not because of tariffs but because Ford is building better cars that offer customer the features they want and a better value.

Historically. tariffs do not make companies more competitive, they make companies less competitive by closing off potential markets.

 

Ford has stepped up their game. Remember the first ford Taurus? That lost a ton of customers. Some are starting to come back, I am looking at ford for a work van, just have to save up some. They always made a good truck.

 

One of the most prominent corruptions of government is created by individuals seeking to privatize gains created by government spending. This is seen where individuals buy land on the outskirts of town and then lobby government to use revenue collected through sales taxes and income taxes to buy public infrastructure or provide services which will enhance the value of their land. The current system of taxation encourages this corruption by making it so very profitable. A land value tax removes this perverse incentive, and the corruption which results, because it prevents the gains in land value that result from public spending from being privatized. The end result is less waste and greater competitiveness.

 

It goes the other way too, with zoning changes decreasing adjacent property, and restrictive zoning policies diminishing land value. Land tax in the modern age is just a city vs suburb issue IMO and regressive.

 

Our MNC are already globally competitive. The small companies are not and it is not because of taxes.

 

There is not one single reason why, but taxes are one of them.