If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   If we instituted a land tax, we wouldn't need any other taxes. No sales tax. No income tax. No payroll tax to fill a social security trust fund. No corporate income tax. No need to tax labor and industry at all   (salon.com) divider line 305
    More: Interesting, United States, house ways and means committee, Major Changes, price bubble, private ownership, Senate Finance Committee, McMansion, Baucus  
•       •       •

5244 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 2:37 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-22 01:16:30 PM
That's really stupid
 
2013-11-22 01:21:37 PM
 Just tax the stuff that humans had nothing to do with creating, and therefore have no basis to claim ownership over at all.

It's always nice when authors put tells as to the quality of their article so early on.
 
2013-11-22 01:25:15 PM
I clicked on the name of the idiot who wrote that (Jess Meyerson) and saw no other articles.

Good way to make a splash, dumbass.
 
2013-11-22 01:26:12 PM
So my "living in a zeppelin in the sky" idea would bear financial rewards?
 
2013-11-22 01:33:48 PM
As someone who's dabbled in residential rental properties, you better believe any additional taxes would be passed on to the tenants. And if it made me really angry, I might even add a "fuel surcharge" and "processing fee".
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-11-22 01:34:01 PM
An LVT would stimulate urban property development without incurring the socially catastrophic ethnic displacement pattern we call "gentrification."

Unlike the article he cites, this numbnuts seems to be under the impression that they don't already pay any property taxes.
 
2013-11-22 01:43:49 PM

Primum non nocere: As someone who's dabbled in residential rental properties, you better believe any additional taxes would be passed on to the tenants. And if it made me really angry, I might even add a "fuel surcharge" and "processing fee".


But that's not quite true: the rents that are charged are going to equal what people are willing to pay for them. Unless you're already at equilibrium, if you raise the rents, you're just not getting as much profit as you would have otherwise. Now that profit is accruing to the government instead.
 
2013-11-22 01:49:40 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Primum non nocere: As someone who's dabbled in residential rental properties, you better believe any additional taxes would be passed on to the tenants. And if it made me really angry, I might even add a "fuel surcharge" and "processing fee".

But that's not quite true: the rents that are charged are going to equal what people are willing to pay for them. Unless you're already at equilibrium, if you raise the rents, you're just not getting as much profit as you would have otherwise. Now that profit is accruing to the government instead.


if you increase costs then your profit maximizing price is going to increase too for the same number of units sold.
 
2013-11-22 01:50:45 PM

oldfarthenry: So my "living in a zeppelin in the sky" idea would bear financial rewards?

FTFA: Just tax the stuff that humans had nothing to do with creating, and therefore have no basis to claim ownership over at all.

Sure.. until you have to pay the helium tax.
 
2013-11-22 01:55:33 PM
While I'm open to the idea, it would be nice if the article actually had some numbers in there to let us know how this would work.

Primum non nocere: As someone who's dabbled in residential rental properties, you better believe any additional taxes would be passed on to the tenants. And if it made me really angry, I might even add a "fuel surcharge" and "processing fee".


If all land was taxed the same, your desire to 'pass' that on to you tenants would be entirely irrelevant, since that would be the market equilibrium.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-11-22 02:04:13 PM
So someone wants to tax things they don't own?  Yeah sure, that's how taxation should work.
 
2013-11-22 02:19:45 PM
Today I learned my two acres in the flood plain qualifies me as landed gentry.
 
2013-11-22 02:25:48 PM
You guys are right and have stated the issues in more formal economic/market terms.

My point is that you can tell when a proposed tax is out of sense of fairness or out of a sense of "soak the rich". For the latter, it seems most schemes won't achieve their aims because the pain will just be passed-on somehow and to some degree. Luxury taxes in the 1990's on yachts hurt machinists and dockworkers first. Now for those of a certain ideologic persuasion, maybe there is the perfect tax against the rich that would have no downstream effects on the non-1%ers. A simple raise in capital gains rate?
 
2013-11-22 02:36:33 PM
Is the article author suggesting a Federal Property Tax on top of the already established county property taxes? And this will cure all our ills? Not likely.
 
2013-11-22 02:38:38 PM
If we cut the military budget, we would see what a huge portion of the taxes collected right now could provide revenue-wise.
 
2013-11-22 02:39:37 PM
DNRTFA, but isn't that what a "Property tax" is?
 
2013-11-22 02:40:17 PM
Also, it would take a constitutional amendment to get around the apportionment clause. The whole reason that ad valorem taxes have not been imposed at the Federal level is because of the 16th amendment.
 
2013-11-22 02:42:19 PM

A Cave Geek: DNRTFA, but isn't that what a "Property tax" is?


It's something....MORE. In addition.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-11-22 02:43:18 PM
or we could just take capital gains at a progressive rate...
 
2013-11-22 02:43:58 PM
Henry George nods and rubs his hands together in anticipation.
 
2013-11-22 02:44:13 PM
Let's go one step further and say only those with a stake in the game can vote.
 
2013-11-22 02:44:21 PM
Salon.... economic article..... grr do I really hate myself enough to read it?

Isn't this part of georgism economic theory..... god who was the farker that always expounded that theory.
 
2013-11-22 02:45:04 PM
This tax would ruin family farmers.
 
2013-11-22 02:45:51 PM

Headso: or we could just take capital gains at a progressive rate...


It's such a simple solution that applies something we already knows works to an area where it would intrinsically work extra well due to the motivations involved, and would target one of our number 1 sources of inequality.

That means it will never happen.
 
2013-11-22 02:45:51 PM
Or we could institute a .5% Robin Hood tax.
 
2013-11-22 02:46:13 PM

A Cave Geek: DNRTFA, but isn't that what a "Property tax" is?


Basically, he wants to jack up millage rates on your grandmother because equality.
 
2013-11-22 02:46:52 PM

StrikitRich: This tax would ruin family farmers.


Please explain.
 
2013-11-22 02:47:09 PM
There are places where there are no property taxes?

I've never lived anywhere where I didn't have to pay property taxes.
 
2013-11-22 02:47:46 PM
Real estate taxes already exist and are the purview of local government. Traditionally used to fund the local schools.

Civics 101 is adjourned kids.
 
2013-11-22 02:48:43 PM
I can walk out my door and see a harbor of "1%" who think this is an awesome idea.
 
2013-11-22 02:48:48 PM

Primum non nocere: You guys are right and have stated the issues in more formal economic/market terms.

My point is that you can tell when a proposed tax is out of sense of fairness or out of a sense of "soak the rich". For the latter, it seems most schemes won't achieve their aims because the pain will just be passed-on somehow and to some degree. Luxury taxes in the 1990's on yachts hurt machinists and dockworkers first. Now for those of a certain ideologic persuasion, maybe there is the perfect tax against the rich that would have no downstream effects on the non-1%ers. A simple raise in elimination of the capital gains rate?



Tax all the income as income.
 
2013-11-22 02:49:39 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: oldfarthenry: So my "living in a zeppelin in the sky" idea would bear financial rewards?

FTFA: Just tax the stuff that humans had nothing to do with creating, and therefore have no basis to claim ownership over at all.

Sure.. until you have to pay the helium tax.


I'll show them.
My zeppelin is filled with hydrogen!!!!
Helium tax can BURN!!!!
 
2013-11-22 02:49:57 PM
The US govt is the largest landowner in the US so then when they pay the tax they will pay for all of the govt's services.
 
2013-11-22 02:49:57 PM
This is so retarded it made me a Republican
 
2013-11-22 02:50:40 PM
Basically, it's this: land is a natural good. The value of unimproved land increases due to social and not natural causes, so it behooves society to tax that value so as to remove this unearned advantage to the property owner and use that value for society. This does not apply to improvements to the property, because those improvements benefit society and any profits therefrom should revert to the entrepreneur.
 
2013-11-22 02:50:56 PM
The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?
 
2013-11-22 02:51:30 PM

Lord_Baull: Let's go one step further and say only those with a stake in the game can vote.


Agreed (as long as they are anatomically qualified as well).
 
2013-11-22 02:52:21 PM
The author ignores that the 1% who own land are probably paying taxes on it already.

Property taxes, acreage fees, land servicing.

Maybe they're powerful and connected and get breaks, but putting all the tax burden there isn't likely to raise so much revenue that all other forms of taxation can be abandoned.

It's pretty much a certainty that Mitt Romney paid very little or no income taxes between 2003 - 2008. How about getting that portion back first?
 
2013-11-22 02:52:24 PM

Saiga410: The US govt is the largest landowner in the US


Followed closely by Ted Turner who owns New Mexico.
 
2013-11-22 02:52:38 PM
Uh.. that's so dumb. The rich would just move away from owning land.
 
2013-11-22 02:52:49 PM

A Cave Geek: DNRTFA, but isn't that what a "Property tax" is?


No.  Your property tax is based on the value of the land as well as the building or fixtures on top of it.  He's suggesting that we actually only tax the value of the land and not the things on top of it.  So, if you own 2 acres of floodplain that's not commercially feasable to develop, well, your land (with nothing on it) isn't worth much.  However, if you're Mcdonald's and actually own the real estate under every restaurant, you pay a tax on the value of that land, without regard for what's built on top of it.  It also means you don't have Mcdonald's 1) pay corporate income tax or 2) need to engage in shenannigans to try to avoid income tax.
 
2013-11-22 02:52:59 PM

oldfarthenry: So my "living in a zeppelin in the sky" idea would bear financial rewards?


Hey I could live out my dream as an independent trucker with a trained chimp.
 
2013-11-22 02:53:07 PM
Aside from user fees where practical, property taxes are ideal because they can just get baked into everything else's price and are easiest to collect.

But they are not at all practical beyond a local level, because of the arbitrary nature of assessment.

// I wish someone wanted to buy my house for what it's appraised at.
 
2013-11-22 02:53:13 PM
"Despite this, the new developments wouldn't push rents up throughout the rest of the neighborhood, because the increased land value would be taxed. The rest of the apartment buildings in the area didn't get any nicer. So why should they cost more?"

Clearly someone doesn't understand how gentrification works. Property value and rent goes up when it's next to expensive houses owned by rich people and goes down when it's next to poor people.
 
2013-11-22 02:53:36 PM

Saiga410: The US govt is the largest landowner in the US so then when they pay the tax they will pay for all of the govt's services.


Well, they'd be exempt.

/
/
/
/
mad?
 
2013-11-22 02:54:14 PM

Masso: Uh.. that's so dumb. The rich would just move away from owning land.


This doesn't make sense. Land is a form of asset. All this tax would do is, in business terms, reduce the relative value of land as an asset. It wouldn't reduce it to zero.
 
2013-11-22 02:54:24 PM

DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?


It might not be a totally horrible idea, I'll give it that.

But how about we go after the income taxes the 1% should be paying first? I don't mean raising their rates, I mean collecting what they do owe through closing loopholes and ending sweetheart deals.
 
2013-11-22 02:54:27 PM

Witty_Retort: Eddie Adams from Torrance: oldfarthenry: So my "living in a zeppelin in the sky" idea would bear financial rewards?

FTFA: Just tax the stuff that humans had nothing to do with creating, and therefore have no basis to claim ownership over at all.

Sure.. until you have to pay the helium tax.

I'll show them.
My zeppelin is filled with hydrogen!!!!
Helium tax can BURN!!!!


In before huge manatee.


On that note, "oh the huge manatee!" has always bothered me when "Oh the huge mammaries!" is just as obvious but vastly superior. For shame internet, you blew it.

www.androidfreeware.net
 
2013-11-22 02:54:51 PM

Masso: Uh.. that's so dumb. The rich would just move away from owning land.


Hang some priceless art in your home and be "open to the public at no charge" one day a year.  Boom, you're exempt.
 
2013-11-22 02:54:51 PM

DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?


Land as a social stratification tool goes waaaaaaaay back. Lots of Real Americans can only pine for the days of feudal landlords skimming the cream of their tenant farmers, because of divine sanction and breeding and furthermore.
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report