True: mooching landowners pay nothing in rent. It is taxpayers who pay rent to landowners, to enable the poor to have access to the exact same services and infrastructure the taxpayers' other taxes already paid for -- like EBT and Obamaphones. You call yourself, "Taxcutter," but you demand that producers and consumers be forced to pay for government TWICE, so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing. Such dishonesty and hypocrisy are despicable. But not unexpected. All apologists for privilege have to be despicably dishonest and hypocritical. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.
"Unless you own land, in which case you get it right back again." Taxcutter says: I own land but don't get a dime of free stuff. " It is taxpayers who pay rent to landowners..." Taxcutter says: They wouldn't if the moochers paid their own rent.
Ooooh, there's a shocker: the apologist for greedy, evil moochers is a moocher himself. LOL! You know that is false. As a full-time moocher on the producers in society, you get to mooch all the increase in your land's unimproved value -- a sum far greater than any property tax you pay -- for free. You get to mooch off the community and producers for free. You claim you pay property taxes for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, but in fact you are just mooching, because the unimproved value of your land is precisely equal to the minimum value that you expect to mooch from society OVER AND ABOVE what you pay in property taxes. Right: if greedy, thieving, evil, mooching landowners paid for their own location rent subsidies, producers and consumers would not have to pay taxes to provide landowning moochers like you with the welfare subsidy they mooch from society. Landowners like you are the real moochers. The biggest moochers of all. Moocher. And here you are, with the gall to call your victims "moochers." All you want is to mooch off society. Everything you post here is just you trying to rationalize, justify and excuse your own mooching. And you even try to blame your victims, the most despicable evil of all. Moocher.
I believe we should be "goading" the wealthiest into insisting their public servants simply purchase the finest solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.
It's hilarious to read these people talk down about the 1%. Yes when you only consider your own country you're poor to middle class and I'm sure you have an extreme envy of the 1%. However if you consider the entire world then most likely YOU are one of the 1%. If you make ~$34,000 a year you are part of the 1%. The middle class for the rest of the world on average lives on ~$1,225 a YEAR not a month but a YEAR. You had better be careful vilifying the 1% before the rest of the world comes looking at you because you're one of the 1%. Something tells me you won't be so hateful against the 1% when you're included. Especially when they want to start making you share your "wealth" and make you live off of $3,000 a year. Heck that's DOUBLE what they were making before they redistributed your wealth.
Vilification of landowners is just another indirect route to failed socialism. This goofy notion satisfies socialists that are extremely eaten up with envy. The whole argument is nothing but envy and is worthy of nothing but derision.
Stop justifying your government handouts. Stop being a net drain on society and do something productive for a change. Someone who scrubs toilets for a living is more productive than the richest landowner in the world.
The moocher is makin' $#!+ up again. Socialism requires collective ownership of capital. That's not what we advocate. The moocher again chooses to engage in contentless name calling. Surprise, surprise, the moocher tries to justify his mooching by accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries, one of the most evil acts a human being can commit.
A distinction without any difference whatsoever. Land is capital, and always has been considered such. Hypocrisy alert. Butt-hurt non-land owner alert. - - - Updated - - - I own land, upon which I built a hotel. That hotel employs 200 people. Now you can explain your idiotic statement to someone who chooses to continue to listen to a sock of Roy L.
You know that is false. The difference is self-evident and indisputable: capital is produced by human beings, land is not. Another bald falsehood. Classical economics defined land and capital as disjoint sets. See above. It was only neoclassical economics that redefined capital to include land, in order to delete the non-contributory nature of the landowner's participation in economic activity. Identifying a moocher as such is neither name calling nor hypocrisy. LOL! Actually, I have been a landlord. And while I think it is still too risky to own in my area, I do anticipate being a landlord again in the future. But I'm curious: under what circumstances do you consider it permissible for a victim of injustice to oppose or complain of that injustice? When a woman complains of rape, do you just say, "Butt-hurt non-rapist alert"? Or do you think that would be the act of a despicable apologist for vicious, evil filth? When slaves complained of the scars left by their owners' whips, did your kind say, "Butt-hurt non-slave-owner alert"? Of course they did: it was the act of a despicable apologist for vicious, evil filth.
Got that, ladies and gentlemen? Now observe carefully: Above, Subdermal insists there is no difference between land and capital; but then he states the fact that he built a hotel UPON land -- not, of course, that he built the land with the hotel on it, which is physically impossible, as he knows very well -- and states the fact he also knows to be true: that it is the hotel that employs the 200 people, and not the land. Speaking of idiotic statements, would you care to explain how you or some previous landowner built the land your hotel is sitting on...? After all, it's capital, just like the hotel, right? I'm waiting.
People are compelled by sheer necessity to work for somebody who monopolizes land in good locations. Whatever portion of your money is gotten through landownership is unearned. Hell, who knows, maybe you even paid for the hotel through previous landowning. Maybe you haven't contributed anything at all to the economy. As a landowner you for sure haven't. It's an accurate statement. Someone who cleans toilets maintains a healthy non infectious environment for people to dispose of bodily waste in a safe manner. That's more of a contribution than that of any landowner. Sorry to burst your overinflated bubble of false self worth.
"Someone who scrubs toilets for a living is more productive than the richest landowner in the world." Taxcutter says: Hogwash! The former cleans few toilets. The latter builds hundreds of buildings and employer thousands. The market has adjudicated their relative value.
Fact. And would that be the "Taxcutter" who demands that the cost of government be DOUBLED, that producers and consumers pay taxes TWICE, so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing? Yep. I though it was you. No, the latter does nothing of the sort. I have already exposed that stupid fabrication: the Duke of Westminster did not build the expensive houses and apartment buildings that pay him millions in rent every year, and nor did any of his ancestors. He just charged builders the improvements as part of the land rent. A pure parasite. A rigged "market" that systematically violates the rights of producers, taxpayers and consumers for the unearned profit of landowners. You might as well claim that "the market" adjudicated slave owners as being more valuable than producers because they had the legal right to whip their property to make it work. What evil, despicable filth.
I would like to discuss your view. Would you please, for definition sake let me know what part of this link you disagree, other then the publisher. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph The problem is where is the "middle, middle class". How did we evolve into a bimodal middle class at the same time the 1% amassed unconscionable wealth. Thank You Moi For a good time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k For a further good time, reference the Eisenhower Tax Code and wonder, how did it morph into today's and why didn't Ike start the process? http://www.beezernotes.com/wordpress/?p=5041
First, because you obviously don't know me or my persona here: I offered the hotel anecdote as a hypothetical. I don't own a hotel. Nonetheless: are people helpless to own land? I started from extremely meager surroundings, and could certainly by now own a giant parcel of land and do with it what I please should the urge strike me. You're one of those silly people who think that one has to sweat - literally sweat - to gain wealth which you approve. I came up with an idea for a business - just an idea - and I gave it to my brother. He agreed to give me 10% of whatever he earns as a result - ran with it - and it is now his sole source of income, and roughly double what he made in his prior profession. By your addled measure, you'd have a problem with that. You'd call my residual "unearned", and you'd by extension have to ignore the happiness he now has because of his stream of income. I paid for other investments from the gains from prior investments; there is no difference. You just have a boner about land, because gravity causes your feet to stick to it. I am the reason people have jobs. Without my risk taking and entrepreneurial spirit (ya know, where I actually PUT UP MY ASSETS *INCLUDING LAND* AS COLLATERAL, they would not have a job. I just proved you wrong. As a land owner, I parlayed the value there into a loan for another business. A developer risks their assets to build upon land which they own. Those risks create commerce. That value creates a portfolio against which borrowing secures financing for other ventures. And so on. On property which would not exist were it not for the ability to own it and do with it as one sees fit - including employing others. Your objections are totally irrational and completely asinine. You know nothing whatsoever about me nor my past, present and future contributions to society. I suggest you shove it.
People with wealth will - by an act of nature - accrue wealth at a faster rate than people with less wealth. This should be obvious to you. It should also, by extension, be obvious to you that there is nothing wrong with that, nor does it do injustice to those who are unable or unwilling to do likewise, nor does it give those same souls any right to claim even a tiny portion of it. Because nothing those of great wealth do to accumulate more wealth can in any way possibly harm the great unwashed masses who are not likewise. In act, it can only help them by providing them opportunities through which they may eventually do likewise. Like I have. By your addled ideology, what I have done in my life would be impossible, yet here I am.
Your position is so utterly whackjobish that it is hard for a normal person to actually wrap their head around. The land/hotel explanation was a hypothetical anecdote, but it doesn't matter one whit. I have purchased land which was for sale - at a price which the markets (which is a semi-sentient entity which determines value for all things, INCLUDING LAND) determined was fair. You had the chance to do the same, which makes your entire ideology asinine and moot. Land is like capital in that it is an investment which can be leveraged to finance other investments. Derp.
not everyone's religion needs a church and making laws saying what kind of positions two consenting adults can use is definitely conservative as well as telling a church who they can marry... is definitely conservative medical procedures take place in a medical facility, not a church .
Oh My. Where to begin. How about the Social Contract between us. You are secure in your wealth and the unwashed masses benefit by the tax dollars you pay for their roads, schools, etc. It sure seems like your tax dollars have come up short these many decades. Do you believe anyone or anything can be "too wealthy" ? Like those "Too Big To Fail" or more importantly "Too Big To Prosecute" for crimes against the unwashed? Such as wrongful home foreclosures with dual tracking and such methods now illegal in California State. Also, what did you think of the links? Is a Plutocracy a bad thing? Please let me know. Sincerely, Moi
Well I mean other than the fact their information was from 2006 (which they acknowledge) and they make some assumptions like the housing crisis affected poor and middle class people more than rich not much. I'm well aware that inherently rich people have most of the wealth. That's what makes them rich. I also completely disagree with your characterization of it being unconscionable wealth. From the poor persons perspective it may be understandable however the man in Nigeria and his 7 children that are starving to death and their most valuable possession is a clay pot that's been passed down through the generations would probably describe your $35,000 a year and big screen tv and Internet and bay windows and rims on your car as being unconscionable as well. But you don't give a fat babies ass about him do you? Gonna give up your vast wealth to them? I didn't think so. Now if you don't give a damn about him then why should they give a damn about you?
Wut? I assume you'll begin when you make a point that is both cogent and coherent, so I'll wait for one. I pay more in taxes than most people - and I declare that without even waiting for your definition of the phrase 'fair share' - as amusing as that will surely be. No, and to even declare such a statement demands that you define what such a level would be, and you will be most certainly unwilling to do so, as such a clarification will leave your position undefensible. "Too Big To Fail" and "Too Big To Prosecute" are not issues of wealth. They are issues of a Crony Government. Do not conflate issues. You'll have to clarify this. I don't know what you're talking about. Very little. Of course. I wonder if it is a narcissistic trait to be compelled to sign a post which is clearly attributable to a poster by virtue of the forum format.
