out of the box thought on taxes

The Burger King puts it to good use. Not you. It's the community, "one of the busiest thourough fares in Lafayette", that makes it such a good location. Not you. You contribute nothing.

 

So how much is that Burger King costing the taxpayers of Lafayette in public charitable services to employees who do not make enough to afford rent or food or health care?
How much do the other charitable organizations spend in supporting them?
Is it more or less than what Burger King pays you for the lease?
Have you brought a net benefit to your community or just to yourself at their expense?

 

You must be the real estate tycoon in the town of Tumbleweed.

 

You know that this is a lie, otherwise you wouldn't be calling for landowners to be compensated if the land value tax is implemented. The fact that you called for landowners to be compensated is a dead giveaway that you know the tax cannot be passed on. If the land value tax can be passed on to consumers or tenants then there is no need for compensating landowners … right?

 

Falsely.

On your part.

I have identified the relevant facts of both economics and objective physical reality. Your counter "argument" consists in blankly refusing to know them.

 

I contributed money to the City of Lafayette from whom I bought the land, money which went into the economy, and rent the land to Burger King, who makes money and puts it into the economy and I receive rent from burger king and put that money into the economy. It is/was a win, win, wind situation all the way around.

 

Like McDonalds, Burger King tends to hire students, young people who need the money. Burger King contributes to the economy in tax dollars and by paying employees who spend money put into the economy. We both do a lot for the economy relative to the investment involved.

- - - Updated - - -

Not a tycoon, just a retiree who invested some money fairly wisely.

 

I call for land owners to be compensated if the government takes the land without proper payment. I don't lie. I tell it like it is, and I understand the economics surrounding it. Maybe you should learn a little too.

 

I hear a lot of sour grapes coming from some of you. It is a shame you don't understand positive contributions to society and our economy. I feel real sorry you have so little understanding of life and economics.

 

You still think that by sprinkling gold dust on his land, the farmer can sell his wheat for $1000/bushel...

 

No. You just made an unwise investment.

All landowners are in a conflict of interest with society.

Landowning inherently makes everything corrupt.

 

Perhaps you could help us out and tell us what an ecomist does and who he might usaully work for.

 

That is an outlandish understanding of reality.

Some people are corrupt, not landowners or business men or doctors or lawyers particularly (or any other kind of person) but most are not, including all of the above.

 

Economists work for government, for investment companies, for corporations, as private consultants as teachers. Their job is to constantly research economic conditions and make predictions after sifting data. Most tend to be students of human nature, and many are psychologists, MBAs, Marketers, distribution experts. Basically economists can work for almost anyone and do almost any kind of business or education job desired. After spending time in a graduate program studying business and economics it became apparent understanding human nature was an important part so I acquired another 100 graduate hours and hold an Ed. S degree in psychology. During the process of education I supported my family on a small military pension and as a realtor, spending a lot of time working with real estate, mostly for home sites but also for farm land and commercial real estate.

 

So is it fair to say that all egment of society could benifet from that expertice?

 

That's too bad. Supply always comes first. Someone has to invent the flat-screen TV before there can be demand for the product. There was no demand for chocolate in 10th century Europe because there was no supply.

There's no reason why a simple tax can't provide the needs of government...so long as the functions of the government are limited to protecting liberty and not perverted towards establishing artificial standards of "equality".

 

Paying for a rent collection privilege is not a contribution. It's rent seeking. And you did not contribute that money to the economy. You simply returned money that you had previously extracted from the economy.

Accepting extortion money is not a contribution.

Burger King produces burgers. That's a contribution. You produce nothing. You contribute nothing. You only take. Like all landowners, you are just a taker, a parasite.

No, you do not. That money was already in the economy. You just took it in return for nothing. You know this. And as Armor so astutely observed, your need to convince yourself that you are not a parasite explains every post you have made in this thread.

No, it is win for you, lose for the productive, because your something for nothing means they are getting nothing for something.

 

Landowners are inherently corrupt because they are trying to get something for nothing.

 

No, you don't. You demanded compensation if government implements LVT at all. And then you blatantly contradicted yourself by claiming landowners won't pay LVT anyway, but will simply pass it on.

No. You are an economic buffoon making idiotic and transparently false claims of expertise.

He has proved he knows far more economics than you.

 

The "market rent" includes the cost of property tax because all landlords include it. The "cost of rent" first and foremost includes all expendatures that include taxes, interest on the loan for the property, maintenance costs, services provided (e.g. water & sewer) and then, after all the landlords bills are paid, profit. The property tax is no different than any other expense for a business owner and before any "profit" is realized all of the expenses must be accounted for or the enterprise cannot endure. A business, and being a landlord is a business, cannot operated at a loss indefinately.

 

LOL. So purchasing property then investing in the construction costs that can run into hundreds or millions of dollars, is getting "something for nothing" when they charge a person rent for the use of the building and property? Seriously?

 

No that isnt how it works. Gold doesnt help crops grow at all. Is he selling the gold later with the crops? What is the point?

If it is that your big land tax will force farmer to sell wheat for 1k a bushel, then they will just go out of business and we will import wheat from abroad where taxes/costs are less.

 

If I based it on the county plans in force at the time? What makes the county commissioners in your county better then you? Do you see politicians as your rulers, or your employees?

All land owners are members of society that contribute.

Dude, do you live in the 1600s? Wall Street pays off a lot of politicians, it is about a 2 acre area. Compare to the millions of farmers and nurserymen with far more acres.

 

Actually many small farmers can only survive economically because the land has been in the family for generations and they're not accounting for the "current assessed value" of the land in their pricing because they're not paying for the land and its not reflected as an "expense" of the enterprise. If they were actually required to purchase the land they couldn't afford to operate today.

 

Agreed. But they do count the tax as an expense.