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
    More: Interesting, United States, house ways and means committee, Major Changes, price bubble, private ownership, Senate Finance Committee, McMansion, Baucus  
•       •       •

5333 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 2:37 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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