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  
•       •       •

5328 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

 
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.
 
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