sprgrss: That shouldn't have read geologist, that should have read, "georgist"
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.
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.
sendtodave: If they are land owners, they can't very well set up shop on federal land, so they make no money that way.
HeadLever: whidbey: Right now it seems to be all right to have such an insanely cavernous gap between rich and poor in this countryYep, because when everyone is all at the same income level, it is certain that they will all be rich, amiright?
sendtodave: They'd pay in proportion to how much land they use, and the value of that land.
jst3p: False dichotomy is false.
HeadLever: jst3p: False dichotomy is false.Correct, but a good way of ribbing our resident moonbat.
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 rightif you want me to, I'll say a prayer for your soul tonight.
sendtodave: f they aren't utilizing their land, then shouldn't be worth much, and so it wouldn't be taxed heavily.
Masso: Uh.. that's so dumb. The rich would just move away from owning land.
sendtodave: Either way, the majority if revenues would come from where land is expensive. Urban and suburban areas, not farms.
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.
Smackledorfer: So close to finally admitting you are a worthless troll.
DamnYankees: The amount of people dismissing this out of hand is pretty interesting. What's so objectionable about this?
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.
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?
super_grass: poverty tax?
UseLessHuman: I'm looking for a downside to a combination of wage tax and a tax on savings.
UseLessHuman: rampant problem of people hiding money
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HeadLever: looks like this joker may be a OWS activist. No wonder it is full of derp
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.
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?
Rhino_man: It's really not that hard to understand.
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?
EatenTheSun: Today I learned my two acres in the flood plain qualifies me as landed gentry.
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.
If you like these links, you'll love
$5 a month since 19 aught diddly.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 21 2018 03:02:38
Runtime: 0.616 sec (616 ms)