Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5257 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 2:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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
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.
 
2013-11-22 02:55:31 PM  

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


Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.
 
2013-11-22 02:55:42 PM  
i'd rather see a mandatory minimum 20% tax on all churches with congregations larger than 100, escalating with higher avg attendance numbers.  and make them print out receipts for tax credits for the people who contribute to the offering tray.  hehe, cuz that's as likely to happen as the author's hopes.
 
2013-11-22 02:55:58 PM  

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


You mean they would biatch a lot more about it. Buying land is what you do when you're rich.
 
2013-11-22 02:56:36 PM  

Rev.K: 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.


Because as soon as the people get behind "closing loopholes" the GoP starts with "OK, let's get rid of the ones that everyone benefits from, like the mortgage deduction." Not to argue the merits of the mortgage deduction, but that doesn't really pursue the stated goal...
 
2013-11-22 02:56:41 PM  

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


Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment? If the Feds imposed the direct land tax, they would not be able to keep it. They would have to send it to the states.
 
2013-11-22 02:57:27 PM  

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


I don't think it's objectionable as much as one of those things where someone goes to great pains to reinvent the wheel for no reason. What's the point, we already have taxes that could easily be raised on the super wealthy.
 
2013-11-22 02:57:30 PM  

netweavr: This is so retarded it made me a Republican


takes one to know one, i guess.

/hehe
 
2013-11-22 02:57:50 PM  
Oh look! You're a farmer! PREPARE FOR TAXES!
 
2013-11-22 02:58:41 PM  

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


I assume you meant only taxpayers can vote, no moochers?

So no voting for the military, teachers, police, farmers, highway workers, anybody receiving Social Security, nobody from GE or Boeing or Mattel or Wells Fargo or DuPont...
 
2013-11-22 02:59:11 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.


It taxes the land, not the buiding.
 
2013-11-22 02:59:24 PM  

jst3p: Because as soon as the people get behind "closing loopholes" the GoP starts with "OK, let's get rid of the ones that everyone benefits from, like the mortgage deduction." Not to argue the merits of the mortgage deduction, but that doesn't really pursue the stated goal...


Fair enough.
 
2013-11-22 02:59:31 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.


Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.
 
2013-11-22 02:59:34 PM  

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

Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment? If the Feds imposed the direct land tax, they would not be able to keep it. They would have to send it to the states.


Commerce clause, biatch.
 
2013-11-22 02:59:38 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

It taxes the land, not the buiding.


The building doesn't float in air.
 
2013-11-22 02:59:45 PM  
It would just be more fun to label those who use off-shore accounts to shelter income as traitors, and charge them with capital crimes against the United States.  For corporations, since they are people too, if found guilty, they would be put to death (e.g. dissolved) with all profits evenly distributed to the lower level employees.
 
2013-11-22 03:00:03 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment?


Oy. Please.
 
2013-11-22 03:00:05 PM  
In the name of reducing inequality we are going to submit an extreme minority of people with the bill to pay all the tax of all the people.
 
2013-11-22 03:00:24 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.


In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.
 
2013-11-22 03:00:32 PM  

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

I assume you meant only taxpayers can vote, no moochers?

So no voting for the military, teachers, police, farmers, highway workers, anybody receiving Social Security, nobody from GE or Boeing or Mattel or Wells Fargo or DuPont...


everyone gets to vote even children because we all pay atleast sales tax.
 
2013-11-22 03:01:17 PM  

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

I assume you meant only taxpayers can vote, no moochers?

So no voting for the military, teachers, police, farmers, highway workers, anybody receiving Social Security, nobody from GE or Boeing or Mattel or Wells Fargo or DuPont...



Farmers own land.
 
2013-11-22 03:01:17 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.


And they'll all be in China if this happens.
 
2013-11-22 03:01:20 PM  

netweavr: The building doesn't float in air.


No, but they are different. Firstly, the owners of the land, the owners of the buildings and the people using the building are usually all different people. Secondly, the tax only applies to the land itself, not the building, so when you calculate the tax you don't take into account the value of the building.
 
2013-11-22 03:01:42 PM  

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

Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment? If the Feds imposed the direct land tax, they would not be able to keep it. They would have to send it to the states.

Commerce clause, biatch.


Whids, I love you man, and we always get along, but the idea that the Federal government could circumvent the 16th amendment apportionment clause by citing the commerce clause is pretty pants on head.

Also, I have no idea how the Interstate Commerce Clause would apply to land that, by nature, cannot cross state lines.
 
2013-11-22 03:02:11 PM  

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


If you reduce all taxes to one tax, whatever type of tax it is, it will increase the effectiveness of tax evasion and loopholes. By having a bunch of different taxes on different parts of the economic cycle you reduce the benefit of finding loopholes to evade each particular tax. So for example a nationwide sales tax to replace all other taxes will tend to create lots of smuggling and black marketeering, gray sales (claimed as business so no tax applies but actual for private use), etc., a land tax will presumably end up the same way - for example rich people might find a loophole to have orchards in the grounds of their massive mansions so they can claim they are farmers to gain exemptions/lower rates that are carved out to benefit farms, etc.
 
2013-11-22 03:02:32 PM  
Also no produce, no meat, and only rich people could afford land.  Wow awesome idea moron.
 
2013-11-22 03:03:00 PM  
FMD, that was a lot of derp.
 
2013-11-22 03:03:05 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

It taxes the land, not the buiding.


Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

/tax lawyer exiled doing litigation
 
2013-11-22 03:03:16 PM  

Tyee: In the name of reducing inequality we are going to submit an extreme minority of people with the bill to pay all the tax of all the people.


what is the minority you mention?
 
2013-11-22 03:03:35 PM  

DamnYankees: netweavr: The building doesn't float in air.

No, but they are different. Firstly, the owners of the land, the owners of the buildings and the people using the building are usually all different people. Secondly, the tax only applies to the land itself, not the building, so when you calculate the tax you don't take into account the value of the building.


If only the owners of the land could levy some type of fee against the people in the buildings. Some sort of monthly payment that covers all taxes and costs associated with the land. The value of the land is directly related to the properties and improvements on the land. Claiming they're separate is retarded. Los Angeles, for example is a barren hell-hole of a desert. Would you call that land cheap?
 
2013-11-22 03:03:59 PM  

DamnYankees: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment?

Oy. Please.


I have no idea what this comment means. Are you suggesting that a land tax is not a direct tax that is required by the 16th amendment to be apportioned among the states?
 
2013-11-22 03:04:15 PM  

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

Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment? If the Feds imposed the direct land tax, they would not be able to keep it. They would have to send it to the states.

Commerce clause, biatch.

Whids, I love you man, and we always get along, but the idea that the Federal government could circumvent the 16th amendment apportionment clause by citing the commerce clause is pretty pants on head.

Also, I have no idea how the Interstate Commerce Clause would apply to land that, by nature, cannot cross state lines.


Well I was only half-serious, but there is enough precedence to justify that since the Govt does enough commerce in all 50 states (with all 50 landowners, (another joke) (maybe?) with the individuals/corporations who own the land, then there is legal grounds to invoke the CC. Yes, I know you hate it when they flip it on and off like a light switch.
 
2013-11-22 03:05:55 PM  

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

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.


CSB: I went to the Amazon Web Services conference last week in Vegas (it was pretty awesome). Where I finally met our sales rep. See, he is not allowed to come to Colorado because Amazon doesn't have a deal with the state to avoid paying taxes here, so they can do no business in the state. They are very sketchy about doing anything that will get them a tax bill and I guess some states tried to collect sales tax on their retail business because their web services guys were working.

Apparently the "slick move" is to get vacation time approved and then e-mail HR saying:

"While on vacation I will be in Hawaii. I know we aren't supposed to be doing business there but I can check my email or take work calls right?"

To which HR will reply:

"NO! Under ABSOLUTELY NO circumstances are you to perform ANY job related tasks in Hawaii!"

"Sorry boss, guess I am off the grid for those two weeks."
 
2013-11-22 03:06:21 PM  
I'm 90% sure this sort of Tax would result in an actual war between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
 
2013-11-22 03:06:30 PM  
I should also add a single tax to replace all other taxes intrinsically will tend to make government revenues much less stable than the current situation, although how unstable will depend on the particular tax chosen, some are worse than others. A land tax would seem to be somewhat problematic as for example from 2000-2007 government revenues would presumably have doubled (absent reaction by the government in the form of massive tax cuts) as property values roughly doubled, and then government revenues would have collapsed exactly when the government needed money to address the problems in various markets.
 
2013-11-22 03:06:43 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


It doesn't have to reduce the value to zero. It only has to reduce the value enough that something else works better for making money.

I'm not sure it's such a good idea to have landowners being the only people funding the government anyway. We need to be maximizing the number of people with skin in the game, not minimizing it.
 
2013-11-22 03:07:02 PM  

netweavr: Los Angeles, for example is a barren hell-hole of a desert. Would you call that land cheap?


Without the social construct we call "Los Angeles", the land would have no value. Therefore, the people who own that land have benefited simply from owning land and not improving it. therefore, we should tax them on the difference. This will give them incentive to improve the land to collect rents, and will benefit the society that allowed their land to accrue that value.
 
2013-11-22 03:07:55 PM  
I did not expect so many replies.

netweavr: Witty_Retort: Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.


So nothing would change.

Headso: everyone gets to vote even children because we all pay atleast sales tax.


Sales taxes are state ran, and several states don't have them.

Lord_Baull: Farmers own land.


So you want only land owners to be able to vote (in this situation, FTFA)?

whidbey: And they'll all be in China if this happens.


So stuff will just be UPSd directly from China? Shipping will be through the roof.
 
2013-11-22 03:08:00 PM  

netweavr: I'm 90% sure this sort of Tax would result in an actual war between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.


ANY result would be a win for the rest of the nation.
 
2013-11-22 03:08:30 PM  
I just want to be able to picnic in peace on the 18th fairway of Hilton Head's golf course during a Masters golf tournament.  Is that too much to ask for?  I mean, really......
 
2013-11-22 03:08:40 PM  

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


I deal with local property taxes as part of my work, but what bglove25 said above about taxing the property and not the improvements makes sense to me, as the land is itself a public good and the buildings are a private good. Also, taxes on a combined land/building provide a disinsentive to people who want to improve their property.
 
2013-11-22 03:08:57 PM  

theorellior: netweavr: Los Angeles, for example is a barren hell-hole of a desert. Would you call that land cheap?

Without the social construct we call "Los Angeles", the land would have no value. Therefore, the people who own that land have benefited simply from owning land and not improving it. therefore, we should tax them on the difference. This will give them incentive to improve the land to collect rents, and will benefit the society that allowed their land to accrue that value.


Nope, you're only taxing the land here. Not the "difference."

The land is worthless, hell they'll die as soon as the Central Valley/NorCal/Oregon realize "we're paying the taxes for this water, we don't have to ship it to them"
 
2013-11-22 03:09:10 PM  

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


WTF is wrong with you, you commie pinko socialist bastard?

/that would be a good start
 
2013-11-22 03:10:07 PM  

Witty_Retort: netweavr: Witty_Retort: Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.

So nothing would change.


For Amazon, probably not. For Bob's General Store down the street? Yeah, he's boned.
 
2013-11-22 03:10:36 PM  
Haha. Renters think they don't pay property taxes. Haha. Good one.
 
2013-11-22 03:11:04 PM  
I like tax.  I like to tax.  I like to tax as many people as possible, in as many ways as possible.  Tax is the thing that keeps me going, that drives me, that justifies my life.

oh.  Not "tax",

I mean "sex".

Well that article just got boring.
 
2013-11-22 03:11:20 PM  

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


For liberals, every day is April 15th.
 
2013-11-22 03:11:28 PM  

netweavr: I'm 90% sure this sort of Tax would result in an actual war between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.


Good. Maybe it'd be the first Interstate Nuclear Confrontation.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:09 PM  
C'mon, people. George's idea is a basic extension of Smith's four inputs. Labor, capital and entrepreneurship are rewarded by actual human activities: work more, buy more equipment, or build a better mousetrap, and you profit. The people who profit off land ownership are merely arbitraging the value that goes up because someone else worked harder.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:13 PM  

bglove25: 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.


Remove the religious tax exemption for hilarity.

/still a foolish idea

To The Escape Zeppelin!: "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.


This is why, throughout much of US history, we had mixed development housing. Look at the factory housing through the 20th century. My old neighborhood had 5 house designs. They ranged from new employee to factory manager. The 'rich' often lived fairly close to the 'poor' people. This was important because it connected people in the workplaces. You couldn't really ignore, in comparison to modern times, the plight of Joe the Janitor or Sally in the Secretarial pool. You saw their families, your kids were near their kids, often playing together.

Trust me, it's a lot harder to have a slum in a mixed income neighborhood. Kind of like my yard is 'modern field' and not some specialty crap. I had the Tru-Green Chemlawn people out one year telling me how terrible my grass was with various weeds growing in it. I asked the guy if he drove by the new development by X on the way to my house. He replied yes. I asked him why he wasn't there, since those people try to keep impeccable lawns. I didn't wait for him to answer, we were having a drought that summer, and said 'My lawn is imperfect green, but it's green. You go look at their manicured, dead, brown, grass. You're going to honestly tell me that it's better than my mixed nature yard? Who has a green yard again?'  He left.

Mixed income neighborhoods are like my yard. You can wilt one or two things, but the overall whole will stay vibrant.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:33 PM  
"No one put any enterprise or cost into producing the land's value - they simply bought it when it was cheap, sold it when it was dear, and waited for the check."

Complete and utter bullshiat.

I'm all for tax codes that place the burden of paying taxes on the folks who derive the most wealth from the systems of laws in place that enable them to acquire and keep their wealth but lets not pretend that land value comes from the land value fairy.

There is a reason an acre of land on Manhattan costs somewhat more than an acre of land in rural Wyoming - it's because a lot of people have put a fair bit of work and financial investment into developing and building both the useful structures on the land itself and the surrounding infrastructure that supports the operation of the fancy things that get built.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:46 PM  

Rev.K: But how about we go after the income taxes the 1% should be paying first?


Because they would enjoy increasing my property taxes more, especially knowing that already costs me 8% of my income each year.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:46 PM  

Witty_Retort: whidbey: And they'll all be in China if this happens.

So stuff will just be UPSd directly from China? Shipping will be through the roof.


Good point. Maybe Amazon would lobby for its own DMZ.
 
2013-11-22 03:12:53 PM  

jst3p: 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 image 480x800]



While I agree that your image is far more aesthetically pleasing, the manatee graphic actually plays into the Hindenberg fire from which the "Oh, the humanity!" quote is taken, so it is comedically superior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA&t=0m48s
 
2013-11-22 03:13:02 PM  

jst3p: Rev.K: 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.

Because as soon as the people get behind "closing loopholes" the GoP starts with "OK, let's get rid of the ones that everyone benefits from, like the mortgage deduction." Not to argue the merits of the mortgage deduction, but that doesn't really pursue the stated goal...


Are you saying that you think it has any merit?

Are you saying that the GOP would love to cut a taxpayer funded giveaway that goes mostly to the top 20% highest earners.
 
2013-11-22 03:13:56 PM  
Can we not tax the very air itself?
 
2013-11-22 03:14:05 PM  
This is another East Coast attempt to cripple Stanford, isn't it?
 
2013-11-22 03:15:05 PM  

jst3p: 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.


img.fark.net

She'd be paying a lot of tax on those huge tracts of land...
 
2013-11-22 03:15:12 PM  

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

Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment? If the Feds imposed the direct land tax, they would not be able to keep it. They would have to send it to the states.

Commerce clause, biatch.

Whids, I love you man, and we always get along, but the idea that the Federal government could circumvent the 16th amendment apportionment clause by citing the commerce clause is pretty pants on head.

Also, I have no idea how the Interstate Commerce Clause would apply to land that, by nature, cannot cross state lines.

Well I was only half-serious, but there is enough precedence to justify that since the Govt does enough commerce in all 50 states (with all 50 landowners, (another joke) (maybe?) with the individuals/corporations who own the land, then there is legal grounds to invoke the CC. Yes, I know you hate it when they flip it on and off like a light switch.


That is still dumber than heck.  To fit with current president you could argue that one acre of land in state A displaces need from state B thus causing an economic effect accross state lines.
 
2013-11-22 03:15:14 PM  

Target Builder: There is a reason an acre of land on Manhattan costs somewhat more than an acre of land in rural Wyoming - it's because a lot of people have put a fair bit of work and financial investment into developing and building both the useful structures on the land itself and the surrounding infrastructure that supports the operation of the fancy things that get built.


Sure, but that doesn't mean you should be able to sit on your ass and let other people's hard work raise the value of a natural good you just happen to own.
 
2013-11-22 03:15:23 PM  

jst3p: 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 image 480x800]


She has huge ... tracts of land
 
2013-11-22 03:16:27 PM  

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

For liberals, every day is April 15th.


yeah, red state welfare is like a tax we pay everyday.
 
2013-11-22 03:17:28 PM  

Witty_Retort: Lord_Baull: Farmers own land.

So you want only land owners to be able to vote (in this situation, FTFA)?



That was the original intent of my post, yes.
 
2013-11-22 03:17:38 PM  

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

For liberals, every day is April 15th.


For almost every conservative, every day is derp day.
 
2013-11-22 03:17:50 PM  

badhatharry: Haha. Renters think they don't pay property taxes. Haha. Good one.


Wait until this "property owners only" tax happens.  Renters won't pay even more tax while their rent  skyrockets.
 
2013-11-22 03:18:27 PM  
Sounds a bit like Henry George and the single land tax.
 
2013-11-22 03:19:06 PM  
Maybe we should just put a tax on....thingy
 
2013-11-22 03:19:22 PM  

runwiz: Sounds a bit like Henry George and the single land tax.


It's exactly that.
 
2013-11-22 03:19:52 PM  

BMFPitt: Are you saying that the GOP would love to cut a taxpayer funded giveaway that goes mostly to the top 20% highest earners.


It's what they were pushing last year and it would have the greatest effect on the upper middle class, not so much the "1%"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/12/04/deductions-eyed-for-e li mination-limits-john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-plan-benefit-many/OdFe1okaHP LItvvteEZyJJ/story.html
 
2013-11-22 03:20:37 PM  
Waiting for the bit from dragonheart "A road tax, sire...I mean, they are YOUR roads, after all...."
 
2013-11-22 03:20:41 PM  

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


Great idea, we will call this place Columbia

gametac.com
 
2013-11-22 03:20:53 PM  

Saiga410: whidbey: The_Six_Fingered_Man: whidbey: The_Six_Fingered_Man: DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?

Other than the clear constitutional issue that a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states as required by the 16th amendment? If the Feds imposed the direct land tax, they would not be able to keep it. They would have to send it to the states.

Commerce clause, biatch.

Whids, I love you man, and we always get along, but the idea that the Federal government could circumvent the 16th amendment apportionment clause by citing the commerce clause is pretty pants on head.

Also, I have no idea how the Interstate Commerce Clause would apply to land that, by nature, cannot cross state lines.

Well I was only half-serious, but there is enough precedence to justify that since the Govt does enough commerce in all 50 states (with all 50 landowners, (another joke) (maybe?) with the individuals/corporations who own the land, then there is legal grounds to invoke the CC. Yes, I know you hate it when they flip it on and off like a light switch.

That is still dumber than heck.  To fit with current president you could argue that one acre of land in state A displaces need from state B thus causing an economic effect accross state lines.


Why would it have to be an interstate effect? The argument is that since the US government does business or is affected by commerce in 50 states, then they would have the right to regulate that commerce. Land would be taxed because the owners benefit from State and Federal interaction.
 
2013-11-22 03:23:09 PM  
If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

/random, end of Friday thoughts
 
2013-11-22 03:24:36 PM  

theorellior: Target Builder: There is a reason an acre of land on Manhattan costs somewhat more than an acre of land in rural Wyoming - it's because a lot of people have put a fair bit of work and financial investment into developing and building both the useful structures on the land itself and the surrounding infrastructure that supports the operation of the fancy things that get built.

Sure, but that doesn't mean you should be able to sit on your ass and let other people's hard work raise the value of a natural good you just happen to own.


The only people who really meet that description are farmers and semi-rural folks who aren't cash-rich but have owned their land for few decades while a nearby city expanded towards them. They would instantly find themselves forced to sell en-mass to developers if they got hit with a bill based on the value of their land, which would then promptly throw land values into chaos as millions of acres around cities across America go on the market in simultaneous distress sales.
 
2013-11-22 03:25:17 PM  
Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.
 
2013-11-22 03:25:55 PM  
Brilliant. And then every billionaire would either find a loophole (because there is ALWAYS a loophole), or divest himself of all land, even if it's for pennies on the dollar. They can afford to do these things out of spite.
 
2013-11-22 03:26:08 PM  

Lord_Baull: Witty_Retort: Lord_Baull: Farmers own land.

So you want only land owners to be able to vote (in this situation, FTFA)?


That was the original intent of my post, yes.


Ahhhh. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

But less than half of the land used for farming is owned by farmers. Big Ag owns the rest.
 
2013-11-22 03:27:48 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: She'd be paying a lot of tax on those huge tracts of land...


Do you have to pay more tax if you enhance your land?
 
2013-11-22 03:27:49 PM  
I've found the idea of an LVT to be an interesting concept.  The economist side of me likes the nice efficiency gains for land usage that it brings.  A few cities have been testing an idea somewhat similar; the split-rate property tax reform.  Basically, it's an attempt to bring in the same revenue totals by increasing the tax rate on land and decreasing the tax rate on capital.  So far, it's appeared to do a fairly decent job of reducing urban blight areas.  LVTs also discourage land as a form of investment since it costs more to hold undeveloped land with no use, and helps to encourage use of land by essentially making any land improvements tax free.

That being said, I don't think an LVT as a single tax is really all that feasible.  For one, there's a big question as to whether the U.S. even has enough valuable land to pay the federal government's, much less state and local expenditures as well.  The reason for this is that you can't just raise or lower the rental rate of LVTs when you need more or less value.  Basically the government gets what it gets.  If you lower the LVT, then you're just encouraging the same behavior that existed prior, and if you raise the LVT above the rental rate of land then you'll generate all sorts of not so fun byproducts.

Plus, people already hate property taxes immensely.  I can't imagine the outcry that would follow when the first tax bills came in, even if we were capable of removing all other forms of taxation.
 
2013-11-22 03:27:54 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

/random, end of Friday thoughts


No. You don't own the infinite pyramid of airspace and space over you either.

~~~^*the more you know*^
 
2013-11-22 03:28:00 PM  

jst3p: BMFPitt: Are you saying that the GOP would love to cut a taxpayer funded giveaway that goes mostly to the top 20% highest earners.

It's what they were pushing last year and it would have the greatest effect on the upper middle class, not so much the "1%"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/12/04/deductions-eyed-for-e li mination-limits-john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-plan-benefit-many/OdFe1okaHP LItvvteEZyJJ/story.html


Did you even read the link you just posted?

Are you just going with the WSJ definition of "middle class"?

The mortgage debt subsidy is indefensible, period.
 
2013-11-22 03:28:04 PM  
Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.

- Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses
 
2013-11-22 03:28:23 PM  

super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.


Less than half the land used for farming is owned by farmers. Big Ag owns the rest.
The land the apartment is on would be taxed, and passed on to the stock trader.
 
2013-11-22 03:28:54 PM  
I'm glad to see that Republicans and Democrats can both recognize an utterly stupid idea when presented with one.
 
2013-11-22 03:31:16 PM  

BMFPitt: The mortgage debt subsidy is indefensible, period.


You missed my original point, which still remains valid.
 
2013-11-22 03:31:50 PM  

EatenTheSun: Today I learned my two acres in the flood plain qualifies me as landed gentry.


So does my two acres of desert sand and creosote bushes! Woo hoo!
 
2013-11-22 03:32:03 PM  

StrikitRich: This tax would ruin family farmers.


I have an outstanding crop of fire ants coming in.
 
2013-11-22 03:33:04 PM  

Stile4aly: I'm glad to see that Republicans and Democrats can both recognize an utterly stupid idea when presented with one.


I thought you libuhtarians like a Flat Tax.
 
2013-11-22 03:33:29 PM  

jst3p: BMFPitt: The mortgage debt subsidy is indefensible, period.

You missed my original point, which still remains valid.


That was them offering it as a concession to get rates reduced, not asking for it.
 
2013-11-22 03:35:57 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: jst3p: 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.

[img.fark.net image 480x800]

She'd be paying a lot of tax on those huge tracts of land...


She could make up for it in drilling rights.
 
2013-11-22 03:36:20 PM  

super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.


Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.
 
2013-11-22 03:36:23 PM  

Witty_Retort: Lord_Baull: Witty_Retort: Lord_Baull: Farmers own land.

So you want only land owners to be able to vote (in this situation, FTFA)?


That was the original intent of my post, yes.

Ahhhh. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

But less than half of the land used for farming is owned by farmers. Big Ag owns the rest.


This tax would ensure they get the other half too.
 
2013-11-22 03:38:18 PM  

Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.


Adam Smith was nuts.
 
2013-11-22 03:39:51 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

/random, end of Friday thoughts


Actually, Yes you do.  As well as any minerals, etc.  You also technically own the airspace above your land, although advent of air travel caused some regulations to be passed that take away your ability to sue Delta for flying through your air


.

super_grass: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

/random, end of Friday thoughts

No. You don't own the infinite pyramid of airspace and space over you either.

~~~^*the more you know*^


Sorry but wrong.
 
2013-11-22 03:40:11 PM  

BMFPitt: jst3p: BMFPitt: The mortgage debt subsidy is indefensible, period.

You missed my original point, which still remains valid.

That was them offering it as a concession to get rates reduced, not asking for it.


Obama wants to raise the marginal rates on the highest 2 percent of taxpayers

Or rather to avoid having the rates raised on the very wealthy. The difference is eliminating the interest deduction affects (most significantly) the top 80% when the original stated goal when this conversation was to focus on the 1%.

I know you want to make a point, but it isn't relevant to the discussion you jumped into.
 
2013-11-22 03:40:43 PM  
I did this experiment my freshman year for a first year intro class to taxation and accounting theory

All current federal debt, tax confusion, etc. can be solved thusly:

Separate the SSA, Medicare and Medicaid into a quasi-federal bank (This would actually be the Third Bank of the United States since pre-civil war states got twitchy about government entering banking). Payroll taxes will go to this institution.
Sell 49.9% of ownership on the public stock exchanges to help grandfather in existing SSA, Medicare, and Medicaid accounts.
Bar Congress from voting money to any private entity except in exchange for goods or services (no taxpayer funded bailouts). Bank becomes responsible for analyzing, approving, and managing loans to private corporations deemed credit worthy
Bank manages universal pension fund in leu of SSA and establishes private interest bearing accounts guaranteed by statute at an inflation adjusted rate not less than #% per annum
Bank manages universal health savings fund with semi-private accounts, that operates in leu of Medicare and Medicaid. No limit on amount saved and all funds roll over at the end of the year
Set a .5% VAT on all non-medical, clothing or food goods in the US to go directly to the coffers of the Defense Dept. Any additional funds must be requested by the DoD in an itemized list to Congress.
Set a .5% VAT to go directly to the Transportation Dept. for the upkeep of airports, interstate highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure. Same rules as the DoD for additional funds
Set a 1% tax on all sales of fossil fuels to fund alt energy development. Any additional funds to this effort must be voted up or down by Congress.
No taxes on any income invested or placed in a savings account with yearly limits on withdrawals.
Capital Gains tax set to 25%

No taxes on the first $30,000.00 of income. New tax rates set at 10, 15, 20, and 25 precent in accordance with current tax schedules. No more AMT.

Problem solved. The national debt would be paid down to half its current level in a decade. The military would be fully funded with room to spare. SSA is saved and made even better, and the social safety net of Medicare and Medicaid are made to work a little more like a single payer system but with more contact with the private sector.

/numbers may need adjustment since i last did the figures pre-Great Recession
 
2013-11-22 03:41:16 PM  

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


You're gonna take your chances on a big jet plane?
 
2013-11-22 03:43:35 PM  

KhanAidan: I've found the idea of an LVT to be an interesting concept.  The economist side of me likes the nice efficiency gains for land usage that it brings.  A few cities have been testing an idea somewhat similar; the split-rate property tax reform.  Basically, it's an attempt to bring in the same revenue totals by increasing the tax rate on land and decreasing the tax rate on capital.  So far, it's appeared to do a fairly decent job of reducing urban blight areas.  LVTs also discourage land as a form of investment since it costs more to hold undeveloped land with no use, and helps to encourage use of land by essentially making any land improvements tax free.


But improvements of the land would increase the value of the land and thus increase the tax burden.
 
2013-11-22 03:43:55 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?


It varies from state to state. In PA the answer is "sort of": you own everything to the core, with the exception of any mineral rights under your property that may have been sold. If you had nothing but dirt to the earth's core, you're fine, but if there's coal underneath you, you don't own that.
 
2013-11-22 03:46:35 PM  

Saiga410: Isn't this part of georgism economic theory


Linkied for you; and pretty much, yes.

Saiga410: god who was the farker that always expounded that theory.


Google-fu indicates Snarfangel said he was a fan, a few times. However, I suspect the approach in the modern day would be complicated by the frequent separation of "ownership" of the land and subsidiaries like "mineral rights".
 
2013-11-22 03:46:43 PM  

Saiga410: But improvements of the land would increase the value of the land and thus increase the tax burden.


Not quite. The Commonwealth of PA requires that there be uniformity, so if you're in an area where land is going for $1000/acre, you'd be taxed at that price, no matter if you built a hovel or a mansion. Now, if everyone built a mansion, then yes the price would probably rise, but we're only talking about one piece of property here.
 
MFK
2013-11-22 03:47:08 PM  

jst3p: netweavr: Witty_Retort: netweavr: DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.

CSB: I went to the Amazon Web Services conference last week in Vegas (it was pretty awesome). Where I finally met our sales rep. See, he is not allowed to come to Colorado because Amazon doesn't have a deal with the state to avoid paying taxes here, so they can do no business in the state. They are very sketchy about doing anything that will get them a tax bill and I guess some states tried to collect sales tax on their retail business because their web services guys were working.


OK seriously, this right here is why SOMETHING needs to be done. Amazon is by far and away one of the largest retailers in the US and are sucking up a HUGE percentage of the market share and they are completely shirking their tax responsibility to the society that allows them to operate and accumulate so much wealth.
 
2013-11-22 03:51:51 PM  

spiderpaz: This tax would ensure they get the other half too.


Exactly what I was going to say.  This would be the best way concievable to get rid of all family farmers and ranchers.

Go Big Ag!
 
2013-11-22 03:52:42 PM  

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

You're gonna take your chances on a big jet plane?



Zepplins and big jet planes aren't all the same. Never let them tell you that.
 
2013-11-22 03:53:17 PM  

MFK: jst3p: netweavr: Witty_Retort: netweavr: DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.

CSB: I went to the Amazon Web Services conference last week in Vegas (it was pretty awesome). Where I finally met our sales rep. See, he is not allowed to come to Colorado because Amazon doesn't have a deal with the state to avoid paying taxes here, so they can do no business in the state. They are very sketchy about doing anything that will get them a tax bill and I guess some states tried to collect sales tax on their retail business because their web services guys were working.

OK seriously, this right here is why SOMETHING needs to be done. Amazon is by far and away one of the largest retailers in the US and are sucking up a HUGE percentage of the market share and they are completely shirking their tax responsibility to the society that allows them to operate and accumulate so much wealth.


Yeah, but they sell cheap stuff.
 
2013-11-22 03:55:04 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

It varies from state to state. In PA the answer is "sort of": you own everything to the core, with the exception of any mineral rights under your property that may have been sold. If you had nothing but dirt to the earth's core, you're fine, but if there's coal underneath you, you don't own that.


Sweet. If I move to Pennsylvania, I can theoretically drink the world's milkshake with a big enough drill.
 
2013-11-22 03:57:04 PM  
looks like this joker may be a OWS activist.  No wonder it is full of derp
 
2013-11-22 03:58:43 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: jst3p: 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.

[img.fark.net image 480x800]

She'd be paying a lot of tax on those huge tracts of land...


I don't know. I'm sure she could work something out with her auditor...
 
2013-11-22 04:00:12 PM  

sendtodave: MFK: jst3p: netweavr: Witty_Retort: netweavr: DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.

CSB: I went to the Amazon Web Services conference last week in Vegas (it was pretty awesome). Where I finally met our sales rep. See, he is not allowed to come to Colorado because Amazon doesn't have a deal with the state to avoid paying taxes here, so they can do no business in the state. They are very sketchy about doing anything that will get them a tax bill and I guess some states tried to collect sales tax on their retail business because their web services guys were working.

OK seriously, this right here is why SOMETHING needs to be done. Amazon is by far and away one of the largest retailers in the US and are sucking up a HUGE percentage of the market share and they are completely shirking their tax responsibility to the society that allows them to operate and accumulate so much wealth.

Yeah, but they sell cheap stuff.


To be fair, Amazon's said they'd happily pay a universal Sales Tax. They just don't want to deal with having to know about every little Sales Tax from every town in America.
 
2013-11-22 04:01:45 PM  

abb3w: Saiga410: Isn't this part of georgism economic theory

Linkied for you; and pretty much, yes.

Saiga410: god who was the farker that always expounded that theory.

Google-fu indicates Snarfangel said he was a fan, a few times. However, I suspect the approach in the modern day would be complicated by the frequent separation of "ownership" of the land and subsidiaries like "mineral rights".


Yes, thank you.  I enjoyed many an economics/libertarianism convos because of him/her.
 
2013-11-22 04:01:58 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

It varies from state to state. In PA the answer is "sort of": you own everything to the core, with the exception of any mineral rights under your property that may have been sold. If you had nothing but dirt to the earth's core, you're fine, but if there's coal underneath you, you don't own that.

Sweet. If I move to Pennsylvania, I can theoretically drink the world's milkshake with a big enough drill.


Sorry: our corrupt governor already sold the last minerals of value for a sack of magic beans.
 
2013-11-22 04:02:26 PM  
Lately Salon seems to be out in the weeds.     Maybe they always have been.
 
2013-11-22 04:02:34 PM  
I think that some variation of the financial transaction tax would be the most ethical option.
 
2013-11-22 04:02:57 PM  
Nah, what will happen is the people who can't afford to pay the land tax will lose their land. Land will become concentrated in fewer (domestic and foreign) owners.


It's too bad someone doesn't make a movie about it...


3219a2.medialib.glogster.com


Then the land tax will be replaced with a sales tax so that everything the now landless buys is taxed.
 
2013-11-22 04:05:01 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Saiga410: But improvements of the land would increase the value of the land and thus increase the tax burden.

Not quite. The Commonwealth of PA requires that there be uniformity, so if you're in an area where land is going for $1000/acre, you'd be taxed at that price, no matter if you built a hovel or a mansion. Now, if everyone built a mansion, then yes the price would probably rise, but we're only talking about one piece of property here.


Pretty much.  The value of the underlying land would basically be unchanged were you to improve the structure only.  However, if all the structures around you were to also be improving, then there might be a subsequent increase in land prices from the fact that living in said area might be more a more valuable commodity.  Thus why urban areas with good access to services and amenities have higher land values for a smaller home as opposed to a rural piece of land that may have a huge mansion on it, but the underlying land is worth far less.
 
2013-11-22 04:05:25 PM  
Defense should be funded through gasoline tax.
 
2013-11-22 04:08:34 PM  
i thought progressives loved paying taxes.
 
2013-11-22 04:09:49 PM  
Please videotape when you go and attempt to take my FIL's farm and all of his neighbors land, I wouldn't want to be anywhere within a mile of the place. Oh, and I would bring some Kevlar.

And the military.

/repeat thousands of times around the country.
 
2013-11-22 04:10:47 PM  
This article made absolutely no sense.  First off, it kind of sounds like the author is saying that we should tax all land, but tax just the land and ignore the improvements on it.  That's kind of impossible to do in a reliable way with respect to improved property, because to determine the value of "just" the land, you have to pretend that the land is something that it isn't -i.e., vacant land.  For example, how do you tax the land that the empire state building sits on?  You just imagine it's an open field in the middle of new york city, that can't be developed?  Ok, what would a hypothetical buyer pay for vacant land in the middle of NYC that they can't build anything on? Uhhh.....

If you want to tax the top 1%, or oil/gas/mineral producers, or income extracted from high rents in certain urban cores where land is extremely expensive, then there are plenty of ways to do that in a way that makes sense.  But it's not like land = wealth in this country, and it's not like every person who is rich is only rich because they own valuable real estate.  It's like the author was high one night and said "I got it! land = wealth!  tax the land and get rid of every other tax, and everyone will be better off!"

And so the author writes this article where he starts by talking about how screwed up our tax code is (true), but then pivots to "therefore, tax land only and it fixes everything," without providing any specifics whatsoever as to how it's supposedly going to work.  My guess is that in practice, any national "land value" tax like that would be ultra-regressive.  It's not like the average rancher in Montana who owns 500 acres of land is sitting on a pile of cash produced by that land.  I think the author is just trying to come up with some idea for taxing the bejeesus out of wealthy landlord is insanely high cost urban centers like NYC.

I don't necessarily disagree with him as to taxing the ultra-rich, but focusing only on land owners is stupid.
 
2013-11-22 04:12:27 PM  

HeadLever: looks like this joker may be a OWS activist.  No wonder it is full of derp



I think the article's heart's in the right place (we need tax reform, bad, because our current tax code creates immense inequality), but the idea in the article is farking stupid.
 
2013-11-22 04:12:51 PM  

colon_pow: i thought progressives loved paying understood the need for taxes.


FTFY
i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-22 04:13:28 PM  
ITT: people who have absolutely no idea what we're talking about even though it's been explained several times.

This is not the panacea that George and the article's author makes it to be, but it's an idea with sound economic foundations going all the way back to Adam Smith (pbuh).
 
2013-11-22 04:13:51 PM  

Chummer45: This article made absolutely no sense.  First off, it kind of sounds like the author is saying that we should tax all land, but tax just the land and ignore the improvements on it.  That's kind of impossible to do in a reliable way with respect to improved property, because to determine the value of "just" the land, you have to pretend that the land is something that it isn't -i.e., vacant land.  For example, how do you tax the land that the empire state building sits on?  You just imagine it's an open field in the middle of new york city, that can't be developed?  Ok, what would a hypothetical buyer pay for vacant land in the middle of NYC that they can't build anything on? Uhhh.....

If you want to tax the top 1%, or oil/gas/mineral producers, or income extracted from high rents in certain urban cores where land is extremely expensive, then there are plenty of ways to do that in a way that makes sense.  But it's not like land = wealth in this country, and it's not like every person who is rich is only rich because they own valuable real estate.  It's like the author was high one night and said "I got it! land = wealth!  tax the land and get rid of every other tax, and everyone will be better off!"

And so the author writes this article where he starts by talking about how screwed up our tax code is (true), but then pivots to "therefore, tax land only and it fixes everything," without providing any specifics whatsoever as to how it's supposedly going to work.  My guess is that in practice, any national "land value" tax like that would be ultra-regressive.  It's not like the average rancher in Montana who owns 500 acres of land is sitting on a pile of cash produced by that land.  I think the author is just trying to come up with some idea for taxing the bejeesus out of wealthy landlord is insanely high cost urban centers like NYC.

I don't necessarily disagree with him as to taxing the ultra-rich, but focusing only on land owners is stupid.


Regressive is a gentle word for it. Farmers in California saw their farms broken up for tax sales. When you have a good year, you make a lot of money as a farmer (or did). But bad years combined with tax increases just kill you.
 
2013-11-22 04:14:24 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whids, I love you man, and we always get along, but the idea that the Federal government could circumvent the 16th amendment apportionment clause by citing the commerce clause is pretty pants on head.


Why not?  The government circumvents all kinds of Constitutional powers by citing the commerce clause.
 
2013-11-22 04:14:28 PM  

netcentric: Lately Salon seems to be out in the weeds.     Maybe they always have been.



I feel like Salon has some really good articles, but then ruins it by running ridiculously stupid articles like this one.
 
2013-11-22 04:17:35 PM  

Chummer45: But it's not like land = wealth in this country,


Exactly.  I have a hard time beliveing that this person even knows what a farm is.  From the way that article is written, it sounds like he has yet to venture out into flyover country.

Those that are 'dirt rich and cash poor' are not on "some one percenter's free ride"
 
2013-11-22 04:18:31 PM  

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


In my opinion, the tax would be too regressive.
I think people should pay to maintain what they own, so we should tax wealth and not income. The rich own most of America, so they should pay most of the taxes. The problem with restricting that to a land tax is, land is not distributed the same way wealth is. Real estate values have always been a significant part of most "middle class" households' net worths, while financial assets make up the bulk of most wealthy households' net worths. So a land tax is going to shift the tax burden somewhat. You're going to see a particularly pronounced effect on people who don't actually "own" any land. Far from not paying taxes, the land management companies that own the apartments the poor rent from are going to be responsible for huge tax bills, which the poor are going to pay through increased rent. So rich people will dodge taxes on their financial assets, and poor and middle class people are going to pick up the slack on their land taxes.
 
2013-11-22 04:24:25 PM  

Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.


If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?
 
2013-11-22 04:30:05 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?


Because renting still has to seem (or actually be) more advantageous than buying, in the general sense, or else your renters will leave. Throw in a land tax, and landlords can just pass that straight on to the renter, because it's a cost that a renter couldn't escape by buying their own land.
 
2013-11-22 04:31:03 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?


If their costs go up, they will all raise prices to avoid losing money. That's different than if they all raise prices to make more profit. The latter requires collusion, they have to agree not to defect, and that's against the law.
 
2013-11-22 04:32:36 PM  
Congratulations! You have just created "Property Taxes". Please click the flashing red button for your prize.
 
2013-11-22 04:32:59 PM  
Even if we eliminated all those other taxes, in twenty years we'd have a lot of them back, alongside the land tax that was supposed to get rid of them. The Reagan tax cuts did away with a lot of tax deductions in return for a low rate. Now those deductions are still gone but the rate has gone back up. Nothing is more predictable than government will pocket the new tax and then inexorably claw back what it "gave up" to get it.
 
2013-11-22 04:33:19 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?


If one, or a few, landlords raise their rents then people will just rent out other properties in the area.

A uniform tax on all land means nobody would lose a competitive advantage by charging more, as every landlord in the area would be charging the same amount more. The tax would also raise the cost of home ownership and so the economic benefits of buying vs renting would stay approximately the same so the housing stock used for renting vs buying would stay about the same.

The only limit would be if people literally could not afford the rent increase on a massive scale to the extent they would move out of the area in such large numbers to depress the demand below supply, in which case you'll see a few landlords who have mortgages default on their loans.
 
2013-11-22 04:35:46 PM  

jjorsett: Even if we eliminated all those other taxes, in twenty years we'd have a lot of them back, alongside the land tax that was supposed to get rid of them. The Reagan tax cuts did away with a lot of tax deductions in return for a low rate. Now those deductions are still gone but the rate has gone back up. Nothing is more predictable than government will pocket the new tax and then inexorably claw back what it "gave up" to get it.


It is almost like Regan didn't know what he was doing, in regards to being a fiscal conservative.
 
2013-11-22 04:37:55 PM  
OK, the rule of thumb for taxes being "fair", and the reason that the modern world very much prefers proportional taxes (income, sales, etc) is that any tax structure that lets the government just come in and outright seize your property even if it's literally impossible for you to meet their demand for money is farking retarded.

Even modern property taxes are careful to normalize to the property-holder's income as best they can.
 
2013-11-22 04:38:22 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: The problem with restricting that to a land tax is, land is not distributed the same way wealth is.


Exatly.  Take some 4th,5th, and 6th generation family farmers/ranchers that I know.  Thier income is typically lower middle class and they manage to live a modest lifestyle while working nearly every day of the year.  On paper, however, they are all multi-millionairs since they own several thousand acres in some beautiful country.  They will never see this money until they sell thier land. They are not 1%ers in any way shape or form.
 
2013-11-22 04:41:54 PM  
Let me guess is the next step only taxpaying people can vote?
 
2013-11-22 04:45:34 PM  

Target Builder: YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?

If one, or a few, landlords raise their rents then people will just rent out other properties in the area.

A uniform tax on all land means nobody would lose a competitive advantage by charging more, as every landlord in the area would be charging the same amount more. The tax would also raise the cost of home ownership and so the economic benefits of buying vs renting would stay approximately the same so the housing stock used for renting vs buying would stay about the same.

The only limit would be if people literally could not afford the rent increase on a massive scale to the extent they would move out of the area in such large numbers to depress the demand below supply, in which case you'll see a few landlords who have mortgages default on their loans.


The latter point is the one I was getting at. Why is everyone so certain that most renters can afford significant increases? I mean maybe they can, but I'd prefer data on that rather than assertions.
 
2013-11-22 04:50:18 PM  

GoldSpider: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Whids, I love you man, and we always get along, but the idea that the Federal government could circumvent the 16th amendment apportionment clause by citing the commerce clause is pretty pants on head.

Why not?  The government circumvents all kinds of Constitutional powers by citing the commerce clause.


I know you really don't want to admit that the word is "enumerates."
 
2013-11-22 04:52:24 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Target Builder: YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?

If one, or a few, landlords raise their rents then people will just rent out other properties in the area.

A uniform tax on all land means nobody would lose a competitive advantage by charging more, as every landlord in the area would be charging the same amount more. The tax would also raise the cost of home ownership and so the economic benefits of buying vs renting would stay approximately the same so the housing stock used for renting vs buying would stay about the same.

The only limit would be if people literally could not afford the rent increase on a massive scale to the extent they would move out of the area in such large numbers to depress the demand below supply, in which case you'll see a few landlords who have mortgages default on their loans.

The latter point is the one I was getting at. Why is everyone so certain that most renters can afford significant increases? I mean maybe they can, but I'd prefer data on that rather than assertions.


I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.
 
2013-11-22 04:52:31 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Target Builder: YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?

If one, or a few, landlords raise their rents then people will just rent out other properties in the area.

A uniform tax on all land means nobody would lose a competitive advantage by charging more, as every landlord in the area would be charging the same amount more. The tax would also raise the cost of home ownership and so the economic benefits of buying vs renting would stay approximately the same so the housing stock used for renting vs buying would stay about the same.

The only limit would be if people literally could not afford the rent increase on a massive scale to the extent they would move out of the area in such large numbers to depress the demand below supply, in which case you'll see a few landlords who have mortgages default on their loans.

The latter point is the one I was getting at. Why is everyone so certain that most renters can afford significant increases? I mean maybe they can, but I'd prefer data on that rather than assertions.


We don't care whether or not they can afford it. If it takes 80% of their income, they can sign up for food stamps and Medicaid and we can sneer at them. And then point to the fact that they don't even own land, and therefore "aren't paying taxes". It would be great fun.
 
2013-11-22 04:53:22 PM  

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


I'll tell if you buy me a house boat.
 
2013-11-22 04:54:48 PM  
Would this be in addition to the property taxes I'm already paying now?
 
2013-11-22 04:57:34 PM  

Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.


Yeah well we're going to keep that around.
 
2013-11-22 04:58:53 PM  
If they really want to make it fair they will end deductions on mortgages and property taxes.
 
2013-11-22 05:03:01 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Target Builder: YoungLochinvar: Tyee: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Rent everywhere will go up.  If Salon thinks the cost of ownership of the apartment building isn't going to be absorbed and paid for by the renters they have to be nutz.

If all of the landowners CAN charge more, why aren't they already doing so?

If one, or a few, landlords raise their rents then people will just rent out other properties in the area.

A uniform tax on all land means nobody would lose a competitive advantage by charging more, as every landlord in the area would be charging the same amount more. The tax would also raise the cost of home ownership and so the economic benefits of buying vs renting would stay approximately the same so the housing stock used for renting vs buying would stay about the same.

The only limit would be if people literally could not afford the rent increase on a massive scale to the extent they would move out of the area in such large numbers to depress the demand below supply, in which case you'll see a few landlords who have mortgages default on their loans.

The latter point is the one I was getting at. Why is everyone so certain that most renters can afford significant increases? I mean maybe they can, but I'd prefer data on that rather than assertions.


If they can't then they don't rent. They get a roommate or find other accommodations (rent a not as nice place for less money). An increase in the cost for the owner (via taxes) will force the equilibrium price up. As a result fewer owners will rent to the same people but that slack will be taken up by those from the next price point who can't afford their rent now and are stepping down.
 
2013-11-22 05:09:47 PM  

jst3p: netweavr: Witty_Retort: netweavr: DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?

Well for starters it would penality brick and mortar stores while rewarding digital services. That effectively cripples local industries for most of America.

Wouldn't online stores still have warehouses? Amazon has several really big ones.

In crappy areas and only when it's financially beneficial. Hell they refused to put one in California until the state finally hit them with Sales Taxes anyways.

CSB: I went to the Amazon Web Services conference last week in Vegas (it was pretty awesome). Where I finally met our sales rep. See, he is not allowed to come to Colorado because Amazon doesn't have a deal with the state to avoid paying taxes here, so they can do no business in the state. They are very sketchy about doing anything that will get them a tax bill and I guess some states tried to collect sales tax on their retail business because their web services guys were working.

Apparently the "slick move" is to get vacation time approved and then e-mail HR saying:

"While on vacation I will be in Hawaii. I know we aren't supposed to be doing business there but I can check my email or take work calls right?"

To which HR will reply:

"NO! Under ABSOLUTELY NO circumstances are you to perform ANY job related tasks in Hawaii!"

"Sorry boss, guess I am off the grid for those two weeks."


How is that a slick move?

Slick is doing your job well enough so the sky doesn't fall of you take some time off.
 
2013-11-22 05:14:50 PM  

whidbey: Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.

Yeah well we're going to keep that around.


So you didn't RTFA?
 
2013-11-22 05:15:30 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".


Finally a claim of passing on costs that would actually make sense (except the fuel/processing crap) from a business prospective.
 
2013-11-22 05:17:21 PM  
When I first heard of Georgism I thought it wasn't a bad idea. Then I thought about it for 5 minutes and realized it's a stupid idea.
 
2013-11-22 05:18:27 PM  

Witty_Retort: whidbey: Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.

Yeah well we're going to keep that around.

So you didn't RTFA?


The income tax, as evil as it is, is going nowhere. It'll be there when you die and when I die, sadly.
 
2013-11-22 05:23:02 PM  

whidbey: Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.

Yeah well we're going to keep that around.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-22 05:23:44 PM  

jigger: Witty_Retort: whidbey: Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.

Yeah well we're going to keep that around.

So you didn't RTFA?

The income tax, as evil as it is, is going nowhere. It'll be there when you die and when I die, sadly.



The only thing "evil" about the income tax is that at the federal level it's littered with special interest carveouts, deductions, credits, etc.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an income tax.  It's just a matter of whether you're going to promulgate it in a principled, progressive way.

Of course, all of these points would fly over the head of any moron who equates taxes with theft.
 
2013-11-22 05:24:32 PM  

Witty_Retort: jjorsett: Even if we eliminated all those other taxes, in twenty years we'd have a lot of them back, alongside the land tax that was supposed to get rid of them. The Reagan tax cuts did away with a lot of tax deductions in return for a low rate. Now those deductions are still gone but the rate has gone back up. Nothing is more predictable than government will pocket the new tax and then inexorably claw back what it "gave up" to get it.

It is almost like Regan didn't know what he was doing, in regards to being a fiscal conservative.


He had the right idea, but what happened shows us that eternal vigilance is the price of tax cuts. By the way, Reagan also signed the illegal immigrant amnesty. That worked out too, didn't it?
 
2013-11-22 05:24:34 PM  
I don't like the chaos of it.

I would probably sell my home. It has twice the lot of my neighbor, who has almost a thousand more square feet of home. He earns about 20% more than me. Should he really pay half my amount of federal taxes?

I would likely have to shortsell after the huge drop in price, and his property would jump up.

If I were one of a few losers in this scenario I would dismiss my personal needs. But this would throw the market, and consequently much of the economy, into some goofy shiat.
 
2013-11-22 05:26:02 PM  
"End the 1%'s free ride". Stopped reading right there. You want to argue that they don't pay enough of their income in many cases, fine. I agree. To say that they have a "free ride" when they pay our bills far out of proportion to their size in the population outs you as a fool. I am sure the rest of TFA just provided further evidence.
 
2013-11-22 05:31:43 PM  

Smackledorfer: I don't like the chaos of it.

I would probably sell my home. It has twice the lot of my neighbor, who has almost a thousand more square feet of home. He earns about 20% more than me. Should he really pay half my amount of federal taxes?

I would likely have to shortsell after the huge drop in price, and his property would jump up.

If I were one of a few losers in this scenario I would dismiss my personal needs. But this would throw the market, and consequently much of the economy, into some goofy shiat.


img59.imageshack.us
 
2013-11-22 05:40:13 PM  

jigger: Witty_Retort: whidbey: Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.

Yeah well we're going to keep that around.

So you didn't RTFA?

The income tax, as evil as it is, is going nowhere. It'll be there when you die and when I die, sadly.


So you didn't RTFA?
 
2013-11-22 05:42:21 PM  

Bucky Katt: Would this be in addition to the property taxes I'm already paying now?


Lol, if you are going to be replacing the revenue of all sales tax, income tax, payroll tax and corporate income tax you can bet your property taxes are going to go up some.

Or we could have 3.3Trillion dollar deficit.
 
2013-11-22 05:43:22 PM  

Witty_Retort: jigger: Witty_Retort: whidbey: Saiga410: I am sure around 47% of the population will be able to afford the higher rents when we get rid of the income tax.

Yeah well we're going to keep that around.

So you didn't RTFA?

The income tax, as evil as it is, is going nowhere. It'll be there when you die and when I die, sadly.

So you didn't RTFA?


We're also going to increase the sales tax to 15%. Any other hidden taxes we should raise, let us know.
 
2013-11-22 05:43:56 PM  

skullkrusher: "End the 1%'s free ride". Stopped reading right there. You want to argue that they don't pay enough of their income in many cases, fine. I agree. To say that they have a "free ride" when they pay our bills far out of proportion to their size in the population outs you as a fool. I am sure the rest of TFA just provided further evidence.


Did you expect anything else from a OWS activist?
 
2013-11-22 05:45:48 PM  
Yep, just keep chasing your tail.  If you want to stop the rich from being rich, pass a law banning personal wealth over X amount and be done with it.
 
2013-11-22 05:47:17 PM  

Witty_Retort: super_grass: Except it's going to completely fark over the farmers and homeowners while stock traders live comfortably tax free in their penthouse apartments.

Salon: where economic literacy goes to die.

Less than half the land used for farming is owned by farmers. Big Ag owns the rest.
The land the apartment is on would be taxed, and passed on to the stock trader.


That settles it then, the trader will pay taxes for the half acre of land divvied by several other tenants in the highrise and farmers can rest easy that they will be taxed in the same league as big ag and multinationals.
 
2013-11-22 05:47:31 PM  

paygun: Yep, just keep chasing your tail.  If you want to stop the rich from being rich, pass a law banning personal wealth over X amount and be done with it.


Wouldn't mind salary caps. But of course, that would mean that people at large would actually have to get off their asses and care about it. Right now it seems to be all right to have such an insanely cavernous gap between rich and poor in this country. Must be patriotic or something.

*polishes flag pin*
 
2013-11-22 05:49:17 PM  
lawprofessors.typepad.comSo unless the federal government is going to pay tax to itself(something not beyond government stupidity) the western states will be exempt from taxes.
 
2013-11-22 05:49:17 PM  

HeadLever: skullkrusher: "End the 1%'s free ride". Stopped reading right there. You want to argue that they don't pay enough of their income in many cases, fine. I agree. To say that they have a "free ride" when they pay our bills far out of proportion to their size in the population outs you as a fool. I am sure the rest of TFA just provided further evidence.

Did you expect anything else from a OWS activist?


I've since glanced at it. Yep, someone was using that dude's head as the instrument in a drum circle.
 
2013-11-22 05:49:25 PM  
tax all the churches, legalize/decriminalize pot, prostitution, online poker at a federal level and BOOM, massive new jobs and taxes under a regulated environment, decreases expenditures on jails and a refocused police force on the real criminals in society.  i'd predict a surplus in less than 5 years.

/one can dream
 
2013-11-22 05:52:45 PM  

JohnnyBravo: Please videotape when you go and attempt to take my FIL's farm and all of his neighbors land, I wouldn't want to be anywhere within a mile of the place. Oh, and I would bring some Kevlar.

And the military.

/repeat thousands of times around the country.


I believe that the cameras come standard on C130s.
 
2013-11-22 05:53:25 PM  

whidbey: Wouldn't mind salary caps. But of course, that would mean that people at large would actually have to get off their asses and care about it. Right now it seems to be all right to have such an insanely cavernous gap between rich and poor in this country. Must be patriotic or something.


Switzerland is doing it with a ratio, which makes sense to me.  The problem is that you have to get the money out of American politics first or it will never pass here.

Now that still leaves the possibility that they'll just leave, but we're always going to have that as long as we keep allowing other countries to set their own tax policy.
 
2013-11-22 05:53:35 PM  

whidbey: Right now it seems to be all right to have such an insanely cavernous gap between rich and poor in this country


Yep, because when everyone is all at the same income level, it is certain that they will all be rich, amiright?

Or are you the 'I am miserable and I love the company' type of guy?
 
2013-11-22 05:54:11 PM  
Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.
 
2013-11-22 05:55:58 PM  

SunsetLament: Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.


Tax cuts for the wealthy will solve everything, once they are deep enough.
 
2013-11-22 05:59:41 PM  
This is not a new idea. The flipside of a Georgist conception of land is a libertarian absolutism on all other forms of property. In other words, it's the same "taxation is theft" idea that, whatever its merits, is never taken that seriously around here.
 
2013-11-22 06:01:13 PM  

SunsetLament: Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.


True, we need to cut even more taxes, then somehow we magically balance the budget.
 
2013-11-22 06:06:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.

True, we need to cut even more taxes, then somehow we magically balance the budget.


Oooh!!! Ooohh!!! I can't solve the second part of that dilemma ...

www3.pictures.zimbio.com

Cut spending.  It's MAGIC!!!
 
2013-11-22 06:09:00 PM  

Chummer45: There's nothing inherently wrong with an income tax.


Yes there is. The way its collected (or filed) is farked up. It's none of the government's farking business how much money you or I make and how we made it. It's not the government's place to tax my income for not having a mortgage or children, etc. And in the end it's the government laying claim to some portion of your labor, basically claiming that they partially own you.
 
2013-11-22 06:17:49 PM  
Headline of TFA:

"Ending the 1%'s Free Ride".

Unbelievable. Tell me, are people really stupid enough to believe that silliness, or do they know they are full of shiat and just willfully repeat the lie for political purposes?
 
2013-11-22 06:20:58 PM  

SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.

True, we need to cut even more taxes, then somehow we magically balance the budget.

Oooh!!! Ooohh!!! I can't solve the second part of that dilemma ...

[www3.pictures.zimbio.com image 594x396]

Cut spending.  It's MAGIC!!!


What do you want to cut?
 
2013-11-22 06:21:44 PM  

SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.

True, we need to cut even more taxes, then somehow we magically balance the budget.

Oooh!!! Ooohh!!! I can't solve the second part of that dilemma ...

[www3.pictures.zimbio.com image 594x396]

Cut spending.  It's MAGIC!!!


Yeah, but by cutting taxes even more, that means you have to cut the spending even more to offset the loss in revenue from the tax cut let alone attempting to balance the budget.

Of course this is all by design for the GOP to get rid of programs it doesn't like and isn't actually a legitimate concern about the budget. You're not fooling anyone here by saying otherwise. Otherwise things like Defense and Entitlement reform would be on the table since they actually make up the majority of the budget.
 
2013-11-22 06:21:59 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If you own land, do you own the land underneath it down into the core of the Earth?

/random, end of Friday thoughts


I like to think that I own a little sliver of of hell.

/assuming one does own the land down to the core
//and that there's a hell
///and that it's in the earth, like in cartoons
 
2013-11-22 06:22:53 PM  

Witty_Retort: SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Oh, thank god the liberals can solve all our problems with increased taxes and welfare.  I was worried they were out of ideas.

True, we need to cut even more taxes, then somehow we magically balance the budget.

Oooh!!! Ooohh!!! I can't solve the second part of that dilemma ...

[www3.pictures.zimbio.com image 594x396]

Cut spending.  It's MAGIC!!!

What do you want to cut?


20% across the board.
 
2013-11-22 06:23:13 PM  

Saiga410: 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.


Me! In addition to Pigovian taxes, of course.

/What, I should hide my light under a bushel?
 
2013-11-22 06:30:05 PM  

netweavr: Oh look! You're a farmer! PREPARE FOR TAXES!


Probably not so much. The land value of Manhattan is twice that of Iowa, despite having half the population.

/rough figures, anyway. It's been a couple of years since I scribbled it out on scratch paper.
 
2013-11-22 06:31:08 PM  
SunsetLament:20% across the board.

Didn't the sequester teach us what a clusterfark it is when you do a basic "across the board" spending cut instead of specific spending cuts?
 
2013-11-22 06:31:54 PM  
As a geologist, i support a land value tax.
 
2013-11-22 06:32:07 PM  

Lord_Baull: colon_pow: i thought progressives loved paying understood the need for taxes.

FTFY


1) Military
2) see #1
3) not poors
 
2013-11-22 06:34:28 PM  

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


And that's why it's really the only thing that *should* be taxed, maybe. It's the common heritage of mankind - it was just here and took essentially no effort to get it (unlike oil or mined materials, which required extra labor).

Since it was there and free for the taking, someone asserting exclusive control over a piece of land is denying someone else who had an equal right to it. Therefore that first person should pay that other person. Since "that other person" is "everyone", the landowner should pay an impartial entity that represents "everyone" and spends money for the common good, i.e. the government.
 
2013-11-22 06:35:06 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament:20% across the board.

Didn't the sequester teach us what a clusterfark it is when you do a basic "across the board" spending cut instead of specific spending cuts?


The sequester has been great.  Are you guys being taught in liberal indoctrination camp that the sequester was bad?
 
2013-11-22 06:37:47 PM  

SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament:20% across the board.

Didn't the sequester teach us what a clusterfark it is when you do a basic "across the board" spending cut instead of specific spending cuts?

The sequester has been great.  Are you guys being taught in liberal indoctrination camp that the sequester was bad?


No, I just remember the whinging the right did when it found out that the sequester would've impacted FAA Air Traffic Controlers and as a result had to pass legislation to make them immune to them.
 
2013-11-22 06:39:55 PM  
I seem to recall reading about a dispute over the ownership of some land in Florida once. They actually tracked it back to the King of Spain who had granted title of it to someone. And who gave the King the right to do that? Why GOD, of course.
 
2013-11-22 06:43:05 PM  

theorellior: ITT: people who have absolutely no idea what we're talking about even though it's been explained several times.

This is not the panacea that George and the article's author makes it to be, but it's an idea with sound economic foundations going all the way back to Adam Smith (pbuh).


Thanks.

No one cares. I tried to mention that.

http://www.progress.org/banneker/adam.html


Although Adam Smith is often quoted, the so-called "Father of Economics" has rarely been read, either by his detractors or his admirers. Consequently he is often misunderstood.

...

Bearing all these things in mind, there are two types of taxation which obtain Smith's recommendations: a tax on luxury consumables and a tax on ground-rents (the annual value of holding a piece of land).
 
2013-11-22 06:48:40 PM  

abb3w: Saiga410: Isn't this part of georgism economic theory

Linkied for you; and pretty much, yes.

Saiga410: god who was the farker that always expounded that theory.

Google-fu indicates Snarfangel said he was a fan, a few times. However, I suspect the approach in the modern day would be complicated by the frequent separation of "ownership" of the land and subsidiaries like "mineral rights".


You got me! I would also tax negative externalities. If that isn't enough to make up all the revenue government needs, we could at least greatly reduce taxes on labor, capital, and trade.

/still a fan.
 
2013-11-22 06:52:48 PM  

Target Builder: "No one put any enterprise or cost into producing the land's value - they simply bought it when it was cheap, sold it when it was dear, and waited for the check."

Complete and utter bullshiat.

I'm all for tax codes that place the burden of paying taxes on the folks who derive the most wealth from the systems of laws in place that enable them to acquire and keep their wealth but lets not pretend that land value comes from the land value fairy.

There is a reason an acre of land on Manhattan costs somewhat more than an acre of land in rural Wyoming - it's because a lot of people have put a fair bit of work and financial investment into developing and building both the useful structures on the land itself and the surrounding infrastructure that supports the operation of the fancy things that get built.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't someone come in and buy all the land, then increase the price because there are no alternatives? Most of the land in southeastern Kentucky is owned by people outside the state, if I'm not mistaken. It just sits undeveloped.
 
2013-11-22 06:54:09 PM  

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

And that's why it's really the only thing that *should* be taxed, maybe. It's the common heritage of mankind - it was just here and took essentially no effort to get it (unlike oil or mined materials, which required extra labor).

Since it was there and free for the taking, someone asserting exclusive control over a piece of land is denying someone else who had an equal right to it. Therefore that first person should pay that other person. Since "that other person" is "everyone", the landowner should pay an impartial entity that represents "everyone" and spends money for the common good, i.e. the government.


Pretty much. It requires no labor to produce income, which is out of whack when your economy is based on labor.land doesn't make anything, or do anything, by itself.

It just sits and makes money. Well, that's odd.

"Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them."
 
2013-11-22 06:55:29 PM  

sprgrss: As a geologist, i support a land value tax.


A farmer or rancher just may tell you to go take your support elsewhere where the sun doesn't shine.
 
2013-11-22 06:57:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament:20% across the board.

Didn't the sequester teach us what a clusterfark it is when you do a basic "across the board" spending cut instead of specific spending cuts?


Yeah, but it sounds good without requiring him to have any real ideas
 
2013-11-22 06:59:33 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't someone come in and buy all the land, then increase the price because there are no alternatives?


Here in the west where most of the land area is owned by the federal goverement, you would have squatters all over the place.
 
2013-11-22 06:59:57 PM  

HeadLever: sprgrss: As a geologist, i support a land value tax.

A farmer or rancher just may tell you to go take your support elsewhere where the sun doesn't shine.


That shouldn't have read geologist, that should have read, "georgist"


/stupid autocorrect
 
2013-11-22 07:00:41 PM  

mouse fitzgerald: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament:20% across the board.

Didn't the sequester teach us what a clusterfark it is when you do a basic "across the board" spending cut instead of specific spending cuts?

Yeah, but it sounds good without requiring him to have any real ideas


Yeah, for the Party of Personal Responsibility, they sure can be lazy when it comes to coming up with ideas to fix this country.
 
2013-11-22 07:01:20 PM  

Pubby: I did this experiment my freshman year for a first year intro class to taxation and accounting theory

All current federal debt, tax confusion, etc. can be solved thusly:

Separate the SSA, Medicare and Medicaid into a quasi-federal bank (This would actually be the Third Bank of the United States since pre-civil war states got twitchy about government entering banking). Payroll taxes will go to this institution.
Sell 49.9% of ownership on the public stock exchanges to help grandfather in existing SSA, Medicare, and Medicaid accounts.
Bar Congress from voting money to any private entity except in exchange for goods or services (no taxpayer funded bailouts). Bank becomes responsible for analyzing, approving, and managing loans to private corporations deemed credit worthy
Bank manages universal pension fund in leu of SSA and establishes private interest bearing accounts guaranteed by statute at an inflation adjusted rate not less than #% per annum
Bank manages universal health savings fund with semi-private accounts, that operates in leu of Medicare and Medicaid. No limit on amount saved and all funds roll over at the end of the year
Set a .5% VAT on all non-medical, clothing or food goods in the US to go directly to the coffers of the Defense Dept. Any additional funds must be requested by the DoD in an itemized list to Congress.
Set a .5% VAT to go directly to the Transportation Dept. for the upkeep of airports, interstate highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure. Same rules as the DoD for additional funds
Set a 1% tax on all sales of fossil fuels to fund alt energy development. Any additional funds to this effort must be voted up or down by Congress.
No taxes on any income invested or placed in a savings account with yearly limits on withdrawals.
Capital Gains tax set to 25%

No taxes on the first $30,000.00 of income. New tax rates set at 10, 15, 20, and 25 precent in accordance with current tax schedules. No more AMT.

Problem solved. The national de ...




As in, individual health savings or pooled? Because I have a medication that's $9k a month because it's an orphan drug.
 
2013-11-22 07:02:03 PM  

mouse fitzgerald: Yeah, but it sounds good without requiring him to have any real ideas


Yeah, I may be a fiscal conservative, but across the board cuts are not the way to deal with spending cuts.  The only good thing about broad based cuts is that you don't have to pick the winners and losers.  However, you need to realize that not all goverment spending is created equal.
 
2013-11-22 07:03:56 PM  

sprgrss: That shouldn't have read geologist, that should have read, "georgist"


Point still stands though.  If you attempt to supplant all taxes with this land value tax, you are going to decimate the remaining small family farms and ranches.

Big Ag will thank you, though.
 
2013-11-22 07:06:46 PM  

HeadLever: doloresonthedottedline: Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't someone come in and buy all the land, then increase the price because there are no alternatives?

Here in the west where most of the land area is owned by the federal goverement, you would have squatters all over the place.


... Why? To get out of paying taxes?

If they are renters, they already pay more, or less, depending on the land value. It's factored in to the market rate for where they live.

If they are land owners, they can't very well set up shop on federal land, so they make no money that way.
 
2013-11-22 07:12:20 PM  

HeadLever: sprgrss: That shouldn't have read geologist, that should have read, "georgist"

Point still stands though.  If you attempt to supplant all taxes with this land value tax, you are going to decimate the remaining small family farms and ranches.

Big Ag will thank you, though.


They'd pay in proportion to how much land they use, and the value of that land.

I don't see how it would benefit big ag more, other than the big guys being able to absorb the costs more easily, since they have more money. But that is always the case. It's why you have big ag. Or big anything. They can beat smaller guys on price.

I'd assume that if the value of the land is more than they make using the land, and the cost to keep the land too high, they'd sell it.
 
2013-11-22 07:17:32 PM  

sendtodave: If they are land owners, they can't very well set up shop on federal land, so they make no money that way.


Most folks in the rural west own a few acres of land but work in mining, logging, ranching, farming, forest service, etc.

Their income is not often tied into their land .  There is no incentive for them to keep thier land.  In fact, it would be a disincentive.  They could pack bags, go squat on federal land and still get paid for doing thier same job.
 
2013-11-22 07:22:15 PM  

HeadLever: whidbey: Right now it seems to be all right to have such an insanely cavernous gap between rich and poor in this country

Yep, because when everyone is all at the same income level, it is certain that they will all be rich, amiright?


False dichotomy is false.
 
2013-11-22 07:23:23 PM  

sendtodave: They'd pay in proportion to how much land they use, and the value of that land.


Again, if you supplant all taxes into the value of land, you would see a few thousand percentage increase in these propery taxes.  Again, these folks own a pile of land, but they are not that rich - hence the saying of dirt rich and cash poor.

There is no way that these folks would be able to adjust to that huge increase taxes and they would swiflty go under.  Who do you think would be there that could pick up the ashes left?

They call it your job ol' hoss but is sure don't make it right
if you want me to, I'll say a prayer for your soul tonight.
 
2013-11-22 07:25:13 PM  

jst3p: False dichotomy is false.


Correct, but a good way of ribbing our resident moonbat.
 
2013-11-22 07:36:15 PM  

HeadLever: jst3p: False dichotomy is false.

Correct, but a good way of ribbing our resident moonbat.


So close to finally admitting you are a worthless troll.
 
2013-11-22 07:36:29 PM  

HeadLever: sendtodave: They'd pay in proportion to how much land they use, and the value of that land.

Again, if you supplant all taxes into the value of land, you would see a few thousand percentage increase in these propery taxes.  Again, these folks own a pile of land, but they are not that rich - hence the saying of dirt rich and cash poor.

There is no way that these folks would be able to adjust to that huge increase taxes and they would swiflty go under.  Who do you think would be there that could pick up the ashes left?

They call it your job ol' hoss but is sure don't make it right
if you want me to, I'll say a prayer for your soul tonight.


If they aren't utilizing their land, then shouldn't be worth much, and so it wouldn't be taxed heavily.

If they aren't utilizing their land, and it is worth a lot for some reason, say, their farm is now near a city and they want to build some burbclaves there, then they should turn that dirt into cash.

Either way, the majority if revenues would come from where land is expensive. Urban and suburban areas, not farms.

If their land is worthless, then they don't lose Much, if anything. If their land is valuable, then they aren't poor.
 
2013-11-22 08:14:10 PM  

HeadLever: jst3p: False dichotomy is false.

Correct, but a good way of ribbing our resident moonbat.


deep thoughts with ... SkinnyHeadLever
 
2013-11-22 08:39:58 PM  

sendtodave: f they aren't utilizing their land, then shouldn't be worth much, and so it wouldn't be taxed heavily.


Land utilization sometimes has little to do with the value of said land

www.legendsofamerica.com

In fact, out this way, it pretty much has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-11-22 08:41:52 PM  

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


HeadLever: Point still stands though.  If you attempt to supplant all taxes with this land value tax, you are going to decimate the remaining small family farms and ranches.

Big Ag will thank you, though.



Hmm, surely you both can't be right. Either the rich will get rid of land to pay less tax, or acquire more land and pay more tax, but they can't do both at the same time.

When we have decided which way the rich will jump, we can debate the other points. Otherwise, it's like arguing that a restaurant is so crowded, no one goes there anymore.
 
2013-11-22 08:44:22 PM  

sendtodave: Either way, the majority if revenues would come from where land is expensive. Urban and suburban areas, not farms.


What farms lack in value, they make up in quantity.  5 acres at $1,000,000 per acre or 5,000 acres at $1,000 doesn't make much difference, does it?
 
2013-11-22 08:47:26 PM  

Snarfangel: Hmm, surely you both can't be right. Either the rich will get rid of land to pay less tax, or acquire more land and pay more tax, but they can't do both at the same time.


Depends upon the utilization of that land.  If it is there to feed the people, someone is going to find profit in it.  You can bet that this country is not going to starve and you will find farms no matter what.  Bare acreage land that is being utilized as a play yard on the other hand.....
 
2013-11-22 08:49:34 PM  

Smackledorfer: So close to finally admitting you are a worthless troll.


So your ribbing is different?

lol.
 
2013-11-22 09:19:05 PM  
It should be the opposite. Property should be totally untaxed. Land AND improvements. Income should be the only thing taxed. If you have no income, why should you be taxed? Should people lose their homes because they can't find a job?
 
2013-11-22 09:20:22 PM  

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


Knowing our government, they would institute the new tax, but forget to eliminate all the other taxes a land tax is supposed to replace.  So I reject all "replacement" taxes out of hand because those assholes in Washington can't be trusted.  Unless the revocation of the other taxes is included in the bill that creates the new tax, we weill get screwed.  Even with that requirement, we will get screwed.

Example:  the temporary telephone tax to pay for the Spanish American War
 
2013-11-22 09:21:48 PM  

HeadLever: sendtodave: f they aren't utilizing their land, then shouldn't be worth much, and so it wouldn't be taxed heavily.

Land utilization sometimes has little to do with the value of said land

[www.legendsofamerica.com image 480x256]

In fact, out this way, it pretty much has nothing to do with it.


A pure land tax is like the most regressive form of taxation I can ever think of. What's next, a poverty tax?
 
2013-11-22 09:35:40 PM  

super_grass: A pure land tax is like the most regressive form of taxation I can ever think of. What's next, a poverty tax?


When you have a poor understanding of the economic diversity of this country that this OWS activist clearly has, it is pretty easy to see how you can reach such boneheaded conclusions.
 
2013-11-22 09:59:16 PM  
And as long as our political parties are both capitalist parties, there is little hope for a land value tax. But the day is coming, and soon, when it will no longer be so.

Shut the hell up, commie.
 
2013-11-22 09:59:26 PM  

super_grass: poverty tax?


Hmmmm. Hhmmmmmmmmm. Subscribe to your newsletter I will.
 
2013-11-22 11:10:10 PM  
I'm looking for a downside to a combination of wage tax and a tax on savings.  Put in a progressive curve and aside from the already rampant problem of people hiding money it seems like a simple way to make taxes more fair.
 
2013-11-22 11:13:16 PM  

UseLessHuman: I'm looking for a downside to a combination of wage tax and a tax on savings.


Besides the obvious double taxation, I feel that it is stupid to discourage savings.  Folks are not saving enough for retirement right now and you think that it would be good do discourage that further?
 
2013-11-22 11:15:04 PM  
What he should have called for was an asset tax.  If your assets are worth more than 10 million, then 2.5% once every 10 years.  Goes for all assets, wherever they are, not just personal but business too.  Send troops after those who try to get away without paying. That is what he really should have said, that would be fair if the only people you want to punish is the 1%.  Anything else and they will weasel themselves out of paying.

A land tax would devastate underwater middle class with a house.  It would further urbanize the poor.  People would flood out of rural areas and the wealthy would end up buying all the leftover land the poor and middle class could not pay for.
 
2013-11-22 11:15:06 PM  

UseLessHuman: rampant problem of people hiding money


Curious that you know better what to do with other folks money than they do.  It is their property.  They can do with it what ever they want.
 
2013-11-22 11:17:22 PM  

rev. dave: If your assets are worth more than 10 million, then 2.5% once every 10 years.  Goes for all assets, wherever they are, not just personal but business too.


Again, that would be a great way to sink many family farmers.  Not sure why you guys are not getting the obvious issues with this type of tax system.
 
2013-11-22 11:33:03 PM  
This is actually one of the smartest ideas.  Sadly, people will never understand it because it is so simple.
 
2013-11-22 11:51:41 PM  

Tyee: badhatharry: Haha. Renters think they don't pay property taxes. Haha. Good one.

Wait until this "property owners only" tax happens.  Renters won't pay even more tax while their rent  skyrockets.


Here's a little hint: density.

THIS
taylorcrary.com
is about five acres, and its tax is split about 600 ways.

By comparison, THIS
www.larryhotz.com
is likely to be on a similar amount of land, and its tax would be paid by ONE person.

It's really not that hard to understand.
 
2013-11-23 12:03:42 AM  

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


Basically--and I am not an economist, so this is a lay understanding of the problem--taxes are ALREADY paid on property. But not all property is the same. Unless his idea is to have a graduated property tax like the income tax is graduated now, a single-family residence in Beverly Hills is pretty much taxed at the same rate as a single-family residence in Compton (subject to regional variances). But to make it work like this guy wants, taxes would have to be increased across the board--and the Compton owner can't afford nearly the taxes that the Beverly Hills owner can.

So the Compton owner would have to sell, probably at a big loss to himself. Or he'd have to turn it into income property and pass the costs on to his renters. The net result would be to concentrate property into fewer hands than now; and/or to increase the number of renters at a higher rental rate than currently, because so many small property owners would need to cover increased taxes.

It would be especially bad in poorer areas where people are land-rich and cash poor.
 
2013-11-23 12:41:21 AM  

Rhino_man: Tyee: badhatharry: Haha. Renters think they don't pay property taxes. Haha. Good one.

Wait until this "property owners only" tax happens.  Renters won't pay even more tax while their rent  skyrockets.

Here's a little hint: density.

THIS
[taylorcrary.com image 792x612]
is about five acres, and its tax is split about 600 ways.

By comparison, THIS
[www.larryhotz.com image 622x467]
is likely to be on a similar amount of land, and its tax would be paid by ONE person.

It's really not that hard to understand.


Except many areas can't build high density residences because of zoning regulations and strains on infrastructure.

This is beside the point that making land a primary tax source makes zero goddamn sense in a society developed past subsistence farming.
 
2013-11-23 12:44:35 AM  

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

Basically--and I am not an economist, so this is a lay understanding of the problem--taxes are ALREADY paid on property. But not all property is the same. Unless his idea is to have a graduated property tax like the income tax is graduated now, a single-family residence in Beverly Hills is pretty much taxed at the same rate as a single-family residence in Compton (subject to regional variances). But to make it work like this guy wants, taxes would have to be increased across the board--and the Compton owner can't afford nearly the taxes that the Beverly Hills owner can.

So the Compton owner would have to sell, probably at a big loss to himself. Or he'd have to turn it into income property and pass the costs on to his renters. The net result would be to concentrate property into fewer hands than now; and/or to increase the number of renters at a higher rental rate than currently, because so many small property owners would need to cover increased taxes.

It would be especially bad in poorer areas where people are land-rich and cash poor.


Perhaps if land for residential use was exempted for the first half-acre owned, then it would work.  A similar exemption would probably have to be carved out for agricultural use, but I don't know what the number would be.  The first 50 acres?  100?
 
2013-11-23 12:49:18 AM  

super_grass: Rhino_man: Tyee: badhatharry: Haha. Renters think they don't pay property taxes. Haha. Good one.

Wait until this "property owners only" tax happens.  Renters won't pay even more tax while their rent  skyrockets.

Here's a little hint: density.

THIS
[taylorcrary.com image 792x612]
is about five acres, and its tax is split about 600 ways.

By comparison, THIS
[www.larryhotz.com image 622x467]
is likely to be on a similar amount of land, and its tax would be paid by ONE person.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Except many areas can't build high density residences because of zoning regulations and strains on infrastructure.

This is beside the point that making land a primary tax source makes zero goddamn sense in a society developed past subsistence farming.


It makes more sense than the clusterfark of a tax code we currently have.  Why am I taxed at a higher rate this year than I was last year, simply because my then-wife cheated on me?  Why are many of my friends taxed at a higher rate because their marriages have a matching pair of genitals?  Why are corporations and the wealthy able to pay a significantly lower tax rate just because they can move over an imaginary line drawn on a map?

There's no tax system that makes a farking bit of sense, because the world is complicated... so you might as well find a way to have it work for the common good.
 
2013-11-23 02:56:23 AM  
It's an interesting idea.
Hard to imagine what it would be like with no tax but a land tax. Renters have their income go up by 30%, and rent go up by 15% or something?
 
2013-11-23 03:06:18 AM  

Churchill2004: This is not a new idea. The flipside of a Georgist conception of land is a libertarian absolutism on all other forms of property. In other words, it's the same "taxation is theft" idea that, whatever its merits, is never taken that seriously around here.


It's because it comes off as a disingenuous argument without merit. You agree to living in this society, you benefit it, your taxes benefit society. Nobody is "stealing" anything from you, and what's more, you are taking from others when you benefit.

I do like the Georgist idea of everything belonging "equally for all" but not as jazzed about a land tax as I would like to see the military budget cut and the US working towards peace instead of destruction. Seems like we take in more than enough in revenue to allow for that goal.
 
2013-11-23 04:20:09 AM  

doloresonthedottedline: Pubby...As in, individual health savings or pooled? Because I have a medication that's $9k a month because it's an orphan drug.


That's the reason for the word "semi-private' somewhere on the range of 9/10ths of your contribution goes to you alone but there has to be give in the system for outlier cases. In instances like yours there has to beflexibility for someone who hasn't paid all the way into the system but needs life saving or dramatically live improving intervention to cover necessary medications or procedures.

The true problem with socialized medicine as most Americans perceive/ know it is that there is no rational flexibility which results in the horror stores (more apocryphal than mainstream really) about people with conditions which need regular/immediate care being overlooked.

The thing I like about universal health savings plans is that it allows access to the private market by way of the service provider whether they be hospitals or primary care physicians being able to make an appropriate judgment calls based on their patient and being able to know with a degree of certainty that the financial burden of their call isn't going to be shrugged off by insurance but still holds them to a level of review, because no bank or program is going to shell out money without taking at least a cursory look at where its going.

Some con wants to run a patients to jack up claims for cash scheme? It happens, but now instead of a federal bureaucracy with no financial incentive to hunt you down like a dog, you've got a bank that wants its money back right about...now. Hope you've got at least some sort of diagnostic proof of injury because if your don't its going to get a bit messy up in here kinda fast...legally speaking.

Private medicine with public financing is in my opinion the best of both worlds. It you get sick or injured there's a publicly financed way for you to get better the same as any person with a million bucks to throw at a doc. It you want cosmetic surgery or some sort of medicine or surgery that improves your life only at the perriphery (Viagra, Valium because you sometimes have trouble sleeping, tennis elbow, etc...) then there still a market for that but its on you're own dime.

The point of publicly financed medicine should be to put you back in the game, that is to say make you a fully functional member of society and the workforce.  Anything else should justly be covered by private insurance or out of pocket.
 
2013-11-23 06:35:37 AM  

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.


... BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER.

Firstly, the first rule of real estate is that by its nature, real estate is unique, unlike large fungible, uniform products on which the market model of economics is based.

Secondly, Most urban centers have positively tiny vacancy rates. In some cities like Boston, You can sign a lease on a property a full year in advance. In New York, you can see something that will come available in the next 3-6 weeks, but almost never later (unless it's new construction)

Thirdly, almost all new construction is built to compete at the top of the market. Nobody is building a whole tower of 1-room efficiency apartments.

Finally, In many situations, purchasing land and then renting it out is a method of direct wealth transfer from the young to the old, as the rent-controlled (500$/mo) 4-bed apartment previously occupied by Mrs Johnson in the 1960s is then subdivided illegally by her kids and sublet as a 5-bedroom for 10,000 $/mo, nicely financing her retirement in palm beach.
 
2013-11-23 06:37:25 AM  

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


To a fascist who loves regressive taxes because they punish the evil poor, and teach the lazy middle class a well-deserved lesson in who really matters, nothing.
 
2013-11-23 06:50:25 AM  

HeadLever: looks like this joker may be a OWS activist.  No wonder it is full of derp


Wouldn't be the first time a retarded lefty came up with a "soak the rich" tax scheme that would actually be wildly regressive in practice.
 
2013-11-23 07:21:27 AM  

Pubby: doloresonthedottedline: Pubby...As in, individual health savings or pooled? Because I have a medication that's $9k a month because it's an orphan drug.

That's the reason for the word "semi-private' somewhere on the range of 9/10ths of your contribution goes to you alone but there has to be give in the system for outlier cases. In instances like yours there has to beflexibility for someone who hasn't paid all the way into the system but needs life saving or dramatically live improving intervention to cover necessary medications or procedures.

The true problem with socialized medicine as most Americans perceive/ know it is that there is no rational flexibility which results in the horror stores (more apocryphal than mainstream really) about people with conditions which need regular/immediate care being overlooked.

The thing I like about universal health savings plans is that it allows access to the private market by way of the service provider whether they be hospitals or primary care physicians being able to make an appropriate judgment calls based on their patient and being able to know with a degree of certainty that the financial burden of their call isn't going to be shrugged off by insurance but still holds them to a level of review, because no bank or program is going to shell out money without taking at least a cursory look at where its going.

Some con wants to run a patients to jack up claims for cash scheme? It happens, but now instead of a federal bureaucracy with no financial incentive to hunt you down like a dog, you've got a bank that wants its money back right about...now. Hope you've got at least some sort of diagnostic proof of injury because if your don't its going to get a bit messy up in here kinda fast...legally speaking.

Private medicine with public financing is in my opinion the best of both worlds. It you get sick or injured there's a publicly financed way for you to get better the same as any person with a million bucks to throw at a doc. It you want cosmetic surgery or some sort of medicine or surgery that improves your life only at the perriphery (Viagra, Valium because you sometimes have trouble sleeping, tennis elbow, etc...) then there still a market for that but its on you're own dime.

The point of publicly financed medicine should be to put you back in the game, that is to say make you a fully functional member of society and the workforce.  Anything else should justly be covered by private insurance or out of pocket.


I'd worry that it would encourage them to not cover treatments that simply make life better for disabled people but aren't crucial for living and don't actually make them able to work. My med is Xyrem for narcolepsy. Only med just for narcolepsy but I still can't work with it. And hiring a home care worker would probably be cheaper per month but it would probably make me eventually decide to kill myself since I'd have no break from the brain fog. But I doubt that effect could be measured.

/fun fact: my med would probably be far cheaper if the FDA had approved it for fibromyalgia
//they wouldn't because they have very high standards for approving GHB use
///which is stupid because it needs to be on an empty stomach for date rapey use and it isn't fatal in any know dose without mixing other drugs in
//only known drug to increase slow wave sleep, so anyone who has pain keeping them from getting deep sleep would benefit
/ont alternatives are meds that decrease rem which for non-narcoleptics would cause more problems than they'd fix
 
2013-11-23 09:50:04 AM  

Rhino_man: Tyee: badhatharry: Haha. Renters think they don't pay property taxes. Haha. Good one.

Wait until this "property owners only" tax happens.  Renters won't pay even more tax while their rent  skyrockets.

Here's a little hint: density.

THIS
[taylorcrary.com image 792x612]
is about five acres, and its tax is split about 600 ways.

By comparison, THIS
[www.larryhotz.com image 622x467]
is likely to be on a similar amount of land, and its tax would be paid by ONE person.

It's really not that hard to understand.



No one is talking about taxing the area of land. They're talking about taxing the value of land.
Do you imagine the value of land under a single family home in the farking burbs is nearly the same as the value of land in a city block?
 
2013-11-23 10:10:03 AM  

Rhino_man: A similar exemption would probably have to be carved out for agricultural use, but I don't know what the number would be.  The first 50 acres?  100?


For it to actually protect the family farmer, your exception would pretty much need to be the first 100%.  Exempting just 1/2 of the property would still increase the tax burden of these folks several thousand percent.  And if you force Big Ag into paying these higher taxes, you can bet that you would see that reflected in the cost of food.

Or, I guess we could start importing our food in from China along with everything else.  That is sure to be good for jobs.
 
2013-11-23 10:25:24 AM  
While based on acreage rather than absolute land value (so not really accurate except in a very general sense -- land in Manhattan is worth more than land in Iowa), here is a list of 100 people/families/heirs/estates/foundations who would probably pay a bit more than they do now (especially assuming a Georgist interpretation of the land value tax):

1. John Malone (2.2 million acres...must be nice)
2. Ted Turner
3. Emmerson Family
4. Brad Kelley
5. Irving family
6. Singleton Family
7. King Ranch Heirs
8. Stan Kroenke
9. Pingree Heirs
10. Reed Family
11. Ford Family
12. Lykes Heirs
13. Briscoe Family
14. W.T. Waggoner Estate
15. D.M. O'Connor Heirs
16. Philip Anschutz
17. Drummond Family
18. Simplot Family
19. Holding Family
20. Malone Mitchell 3rd
21. Hughes Family
22. Patrick Broe
23. Collins Family
24. Nunley Family
25. Jeff Bezos
26. Collier Family
27. H.L. Kokernot Heirs
28. Wilks Brothers
29. Anne Marion
30. Babbitt Heirs
31. Mike Smith
32. Lyda Family
33. Jones Family
33. Killam Family
33. True Family
36. Reynolds Family
37. Paul Fireman
38. D.K. Boyd
39. Koch Family (Nooo, not the Koch family!)
40. McCoy & Remme Families
40. Llano Partners, Ltd.
42. Scott Heirs
43. Louis Moore Bacon
44. East Wildlife Foundation
45. Gage Heirs
46. Cassidy Heirs
47. Bidegain Family
47. Langdale Family
47. Eugene Gabrych
50. Bogle Family
51. Hunt Family
52. Tim Blixseth
53. Williams Family
54. Robert Funk
55. Russell Gordy
56. Broadbent Family
56. Irwin Heirs
58. Sugg Family
59. Fasken Family
60. Mike Mechenbier
61. Benjy Griffith III
62. Cogdell Family
63. JA Ranch Heirs
64. Fanjul Family
65. Hearst Family
66. Ellison Family
67. Bass Family
67. Emily Garvey Bonavia
67. Boswell Family
67. Eddy Family
67. William Henry Green Heirs
67. King Brothers
73. David Murdock
74. Wells Family
75. L-A-D Foundation
76. Gerald J. Ford
77. Stefan Soloviev
78. Harrison Family
78. Lane Family
80. Crosby Family
81. Ellwood Heirs
81. Monahan Family
83. Davis Heirs
84. Booth Family
84. Brite Heirs
86. Reese Family
87. Milliken Family
88. Roxanne Quimby
89. Moursund Family
90. Scharbauer Family
91. Richard Evans
92. Clayton and Modesta Williams Jr.
93. Stan Harper
94. Frank VanderSloot
95. Linnebur Family
96. Arthur Nicholas
97. Robinson Family
98. Riggs Family
99. Butler Heirs
100. Beggs Family
100. Powell Family
100. Walter Umphrey

Of course with such a tax, some of these people would start selling off bits and pieces of their holdings to others who currently have less land, which I am sure is sad in a way. But at least they aren't going to stash a few million acres in a Swiss bank account, so there is that.
 
2013-11-23 10:27:01 AM  

Rhino_man: It's really not that hard to understand.


That the high density will pay much, much more tax because they will taxed on the land value rather than a acreage?
 
2013-11-23 10:40:30 AM  
Ah, a better list of America's Top 100 Land Owners. You need 100,000 acres just to get on it. That's a comma, not a period (unless you are European).

Some of these entries crack me up:

#100 (tie) Walter Umphrey
100,000 acres  You'd think that growing tobacco would be a surefire way to earn a place on the Land 100, but Umphrey made his fortune suing tobacco companies. He has used portions of those settlement [sic] to buy three ranches where he hunts, raises cattle, and one might hope, doesn't smoke.
 
2013-11-23 10:47:11 AM  
Because a non-solution that will obviously never be implemented because it cannot be implemented and should not be implemented is clearly the right way to go.
 
2013-11-23 11:30:26 AM  
Taxing land would work. Too bad this nation was founded on the principle that rich landowners shouldn't have to pay taxes. That is for the little people. The "founding fathers" were so rich from their land holdings that they would have been considered nobility in old Europe, and they conveniently extended the right to vote only to themselves and other rich land owners. They talked about freedom while still owning slaves. Since then, bonded slavery has been replaced by wage slavery. Little else has changed.
 
2013-11-23 11:33:32 AM  

Tyee: Rhino_man: It's really not that hard to understand.

That the high density will pay much, much more tax because they will taxed on the land value rather than a acreage?


and that it will be split many, many more ways because of the number of inhabitants.  STILL not hard to understand.
 
2013-11-23 01:46:32 PM  

EatenTheSun: Today I learned my two acres in the flood plain qualifies me as landed gentry.


So do I get the title Barron for my 5 acres? OHH can I have men at arms and serfs?
 
2013-11-23 01:47:48 PM  

ikanreed: 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.


Have you taken your meds?
 
2013-11-23 04:04:38 PM  
So federal rent on all land, before reforming the monetary system? LOL, enjoy even further accumulation of wealth to the top.

There would have to be a lower threshold for personal use(say enough land to farm/fund a limited extended family), insane Bureaucracy/loophole territory none the less.

drta
 
2013-11-23 05:50:33 PM  
Seems kind of similar.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminS hokrizade/20130405/189984/How_I_ U sed_EVE_Online_to_Predict_the_Great_Re cession.php
 
2013-11-23 05:56:47 PM  

Bucky Katt: Would this be in addition to the property taxes I'm already paying now?



Of course, who else Is going to pay for the poors? They certainly can not pay for themselves, or they wouldn't be poor.
 
2013-11-23 05:57:36 PM  
How about instead of finding new and fun ways to tax the populace, how about the government just spend less money?
 
2013-11-23 06:39:07 PM  
Sounds good to me. Tea partiers only want landowners to have the right to vote anwyays.
 
2013-11-23 10:40:00 PM  
We all know that my half acre will cost me dearly while the rich will find loopholes and write-offs. No deal.
 
Displayed 305 of 305 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report