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  
•       •       •

5251 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report