Wealthy will ALWAYS have an advantage

The wealthy crack me up because they blatantly buy the government, screw the poor, and convince poor GOP voters that they are helping them!

They deserve a pat on the back for the last part.

 

The more I think about it the more I could accept the Georgist system of LVT, with several provisos.

1. The current landowner must be reimbursed for his investment costs and potential.
2. The reason and means to acquire the land meets strict judicial guidelines.
3. The community is restrained from charging an LVT % higher for one occupier than another with land value being similar.
4. Land management tools must meet the same stringent judicial guidelines as eminent domain.
5. Subsequent community leaders are refrained from changing the rules based on their particular preference or expectation for tax value.
6. Leasehold is automatically renewed with out any new restrictions.
7. Land occupiers are completely protected from confiscatory taxation.
8. As land values increase taxes cannot be raised beyond the same % as the inflated value of land.
9 Land tenure is absolute exclusive providing taxes are paid.
10. There are no other state or municipal required for the land occupier
11. Fair rents can be charged to anyone wishing to occupy the land by agreement with the lease freehold owner..
12. The right to sell the lease hold rights at the discretion of the current lease holder.

I reserve the right to add or delete provisos at any time.

 

Well interestingly, people voting GOP also weigh in heavily on social issues and the GOP is where the evangelical vote is extremely strong. I saw a documentary where interviews were conducted with dirt poor people voting GOP and all of them said economic issues didn't matter to them, things like whether the candidate was an open Christian and held 'Christian Values' (which have also been misnamed because the values shown in the bible are quite disgusting) and on specific issues like gay marriage. I mean, really, voting on a candidate over gay marriage, something that affects 4-8% of the population directly (the gay people that can or cannot get married) or voting on economic issues, something that affects everyone in the country and to a lesser extent, the world...it's mind numbing to think how people can make a decision on that...anyway. Like I said, it's not just messaging poor people to vote against themselves in the realm of economics, it's weirdo fundamentalists who don't even care.

 

There are many people who believe in a higher law than the laws of a country, and if they choose to vote their conscience I understand fully. They are no different than people on the other end of the spectrum who vote counter religious belief as their primary belief system. To each his own, and which ever way they choose to vote is not counter themselves. I am not a one issue voter only because there has never been a single issue which would demand my attention, but I presume it would be possible. Personal economics is not my primary concern. I have risen significantly on the Maslowe hierarchy pyramid, very close to the very top, and it is those issues which concern me more than economics.

Click to see image

 

I said it was mind blowing to me, I didn't say let's take their right to vote away.

 

I did not mean to infer you did. I was simply stating my opinion relative to your comment to which I responded.

 

I would add some kind of minimum alternative tax to keep the very rich who do not own land from skating on taxes.

 

By my share in the creation of it. So if my labor is %40 of the creation of an item, my share is %40 of that item's value. Of course it's usually not so large. There is the cost of electricity if machinery is involved, the purchase price, properly defrayed over time, not forever used as an excuse to continue to profit, repairs, the building rental or purchase, the work of other laborers, supervisors, and planners. For most industry, collectives would do very well. Several exist, generally on a small scale, though.

 

If the capitalists get out of hand and refuse to keep prices reasonable, taking a cut to their obscenely obsessive profits, we can always enact price controls on essential goods and services. They're welcome to charge whatever they like for entertainment and luxury goods, however.

 

So you believe your share should exclude profit for the business owner? You don't consider his investment to be worth part of the end product?

 

Adam Smith understood many things about economics but he was talking about a different economic situation many years ago. There is a difference between a producer having to charge high prices because his costs are high (including labor) and being able to charge high prices and make more profit. In the latter example he has the flexibility to lower prices to compete with other producers whereas in the former he does not. Gone are the days when "capital" is thought of as "the excess production of a worker" and now capital is universally considered by economists as the finances needed to create a productive atmosphere which includes the money to pay labor. The old view of capital is based on an agrarian society in which a farmer grows more food or product than he can consume and can then sell it or trade it for things he desires.

 

There is a huge difference between these mindsets though. People should just be aware of it.

 

Why does everything have to be so damn complicated?

Oh that's right, politicians are criminals, and most are lawyers, yet I repeat myself.

 

According to the Christian Bible things are going to be quite different on the Judgment Day.

 

Maybe so. And I don't disagree. But while on earth it seems to be this way.