out of the box thought on taxes

I found this to be an interesting statement because of one simple fact. The US government doesn't follow any recognizable ecomomic philosophy. While often referred to as being "Keynesian" it deviates so much from what Keynes proposed that he'd be rolling in his grave if he knew his name was being used related to US economic policies.

 

Again, absolute ignorance of basic economics along with the hatred generated whenever a theology is "desecrated."

 

Income taxes on real Persons in our republic; in this alternative.

 

You have a bug flying around you who needs to be swatted down again. Actually you have two bugs buzzing around you and you need to swat them down again.

 

Your posts are the absurd ones buzzy.

- - - Updated - - -

More absurdity! Do you ever plan to learn anything about reality?

 

He said nothing of the kind. The land owner put the purchase of the property into the economy and he pays property tax every year. His contribution to the economy is as great as it would be under LVT, possibly greater in all likelyhood.

Slavery is wrong and it is legally. There is no parallel in owner land rent and slavery.

By whom? Landowners don't rob anyone. That is your fairytale.

He is paying the land owner a rent for his land, a perfectly honest and honorable situation.

He stipulated that it was done in the old days, and he admitted it does not happen now.

You have a very vivid imagination and so far your fairy tales are nonsense. Your posts are like the buzzing of a bug.

 

Rent seeking may or may not be relative to landowners and is the unfair attempt to get advantage for their business. Landowners are not rent seeking when they rent their land out. They are performing a reasonable service and being paid a reasonable premium. Obviously you do not understand what rent seeking means and you persist in demonizing decent business people who happen to own land.

Actually that is true, but I hope you are smart enough to know landowners leasing their land for rent IS NOT RENT-SEEKING.

Supporting landowners who rent out their land is not evil or even moderately wrong. Your definitions are screwed up.

Landowning and renting out is not privilege nor is it plunder and most assuredly is one of the productive contributions to our economy. If you understood even a little about economy you would know that. Buzz buzz!

 

Actually land owners get their land by buying it properly or inheriting it. In the case of inheriting it, the individual who passed it on did the contribution to the economy when it was procured and the current owner is putting the rent he collects into the economy. Human labor is not required to be performed to make purposeful contributions to society and the economy. Landowner acts which collect and spend money collected from rents are very adequate and honorable means to contribute to society. Buzz buzz.

 

That's not a tax policy question. To make our companies globally competitive, what we have to do is get our laborers to work for the same wages they do in Taiwan. If the laborers don't like it, send the whole industry to Taiwan.

 

I have never known a landlord who did not pass on his expenses including taxes. Buzz buzz.

 

Of all the unimpressive comments many come from you. It appears when you don't understand something you call it gibberish and when you can't convince anyone of your opinion you get rude and abusive. Buzz buzz.

 

I think you are basically right about the US, but the fault is not with the economists but with the politicians with agenda. Personally I don't like the basic Keynesian economic theories in a number of areas. I prefer George Reisman and his theories of capitalism and libertarianism. Keynesian theories contain many socialist principles and looks to the government to too much meddling in the economy. Government has a way about being the cause of many down business cycles.

 

Cracker, where have you been? These clowns have spent several days spreading their natural fertilizer around the thread. What a waste of band width.

Plus, I like the Buzz buzz. I hope you don't mind if I copy you when a bug comes buzzing around.

 

I suggested the kinds of taxes that would make the US competitive. A 1% transaction tax and a .005%-.02% financial transactions tax would make the United States incredibly competitive by creating a strong revenue base while alleviating the tax burden on businesses and individuals to unprecedented levels.

 

The question was "what tax policy." I disagree with what you said, but what you said is basically off-subject discussion anyway.

 

Again, the question was about tax policy, not spending policy. If we assume spending is unchanged, what you suggest would not raise the revenue needed and be disastrous. You're deliberately avoiding the question, and its intellectually shallow.

 

I will answer it again. Eliminate all corporate taxation. With tax neutral amounts in mind shift all taxes to individual progressive income taxes. That way only those who earn money and based on how much they earn their taxes can replace all corporate taxes and regressive taxes (regressive meaning making the poor pay the same $ tax for the same product or income.) Eliminate all taxes on overseas profits repatriating to the US.

Transaction taxes on amounts exceeding a given amount on individual persons' transactions only.

 

And why do you think this would make it easier for a US product to compete with a foreign product?

Also, most making many millions don't do it in standard income but through a business or through stocks. Would you treat all that the same?

 

Yep. In fact, you would get to pay no taxes as long as the rental value of the land you excluded others from was less than your (and all the members of your household's) universal individual exemptions. So as long as you didn't mind occupying a small land value footprint (such as by living in a high-rise apartment building in a mid-rent neighborhood), you could live in the city and still pay no tax. My guess is that 10%-20% of the population might fall into this no-LVT-liability category.

 

Taxing a business adds cost to the product or service, ergo less competitive.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh oh, I heard a bug buzz by, swat, splat.

 

No, the question is deliberately obtuse, and the Mayor is immune the whinings of the deliberately obtuse.

There's absolutely NO POINT, NONE WHATSOEVER, in changing the tax code when the problem is the spending the RATS are baiting their drone traps with taxpayer dollars. Maturbating with the tax code in those circumstances won't solve the basic problem.

However, it's still perfectly clear that lowering tax rates would certainly raise tax revenues. Contrary to the lies the RATS feed the drones, supply side economics works wonderfully.

Socialism, which is being applied now, has a perfect record of failure.

 

The United States is following a formally defined economic policy, known as Kenyanesianism. In Kenyanesianism, the President has to work to deliberately destroy as many jobs as possible and act positively to prevent the creation of new jobs, while also spending the nation into poverty, destroying it's military, and preventing it from developing any of it's domestic natural resources that would serve as nuclei for industrial growth.

 

It would be nice if we could find nice politicians of morals who are willing to Faithfully execute a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will.

 

And taxing individual incomes means that consumers now have less money, netting about the same, but it will give the rise to much stronger corporations since you want to tax personal income heavily but not capital gains. I'd say splat, but I think I can act like a grown up today.

A sales tax, on the other hand, taxes neither American businesses nor American income, but rather taxes the sale of products, meaning there will no built-in tax-related costs that hurt American businesses relative to foreign ones competing in America. Abroad? It'd make it easier.

 

Dude, stay on topic. Seriously, if you want to whine about spending, start your own thread.

And no, lowering taxes wouldn't raise tax revenues, though it may increase economic growth. If it was an absolute truth that lowering taxes increases revenues, we could lower top personal tax rates from 28%, to 21%, to 14%, to 7%, to 2%, to 1%, to 1/2%, to 0, and we'd see increased revenue every time. It doesn't take a genius to know that's a load of crock.