I don't blame them. I blame our corporations for holding more for profit and giving less to workers over time. They've actually created the situation we're in by their own actions, or at least they setup their workers to indebt themselves to the point of financial failure because they have already worked more hours and put two workers into the force to have enough. WHen that also failed, the next step was credit, which today shows itself as people spending too much money on servicing their own debt interest and too little creating demand for goods and services. When corporate profits grow as they have without a resulting wage increase to the average worker, the divide grows between rich and poor. It's been happening since the 1970s and anyone who works and isn't at the top of their company has been affected.
I pay my few employees a decent living wage---those who have been more greedy have left. So I am someone creating wealth and jobs---not someone sending jobs overseas. Ask yourself, "Why did the jobs start going overseas?" Cheaper labor was only part of it. There are many other factors: Just having the Minimum Wage Act. It is obsolete. Let the market dictate the pay and benefits. Federal laws requiring healthcare and other benes----as the nightmare of Obamacare continues.... Fanatical anti-business agencies and policies: Such as the Labor Relations Board, the EPA and Americans with Disabilities Act. Here is a bit more: Small Business Facts Small businesses create two-thirds of the net new jobs annually, employ more than half of the private-sector workforce, and generate nearly 50 percent of annual GDP. America’s small businesses are the backbone of our economy and engines of job creation. Regulations by the numbers Today, there are 3,503 federal regulations in the pipeline (Source: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Unified Agenda 2012) There are currently 739 federal regulations affecting small businesses (Source: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) There are 174,545 total pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, an increase of more than 21 percent over the last decade (Source: Congressional Research Service) 13,000 final rules were published in the Federal Register from 2009-2012 (Source: Congressional Research Service) 330 “major” economic rules were published in the last four years. (Source: Congressional Research Service) Since 1976, the number of pages of environmental rules in the Code of Federal Regulations has increased 25 fold, from around 1,000 pages to 25,000 pages. (Source: Fuel Fix – Info-Graphic: EPA Outlier in Federal Regulations) Paperwork from the EPA in 2012, took 176 million hours, costing various industries more than $2.4 billion. (Source: American Action Forum) 6,669 regulatory changes or notices were posted on www.regulations.gov over a three month period – an average of 74 per day, making it difficult for small businesses to keep up. (Source: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) http://www.sensibleregulations.org/resources/facts-and-figures/- Socialism is the American worker's biggest threat.
Then we're in the same boat. I too am a small business owner. And we're facing similar challenges. But small business isn't the issue. We feel good about the jobs we've created. But major corporations have kept wages flat (inflation adjusted) since the 1970s while enriching their top executives. The profits they have kept would have been better spent on workers because today those workers are struggling to buy any company's goods at a sustainable rate. We've lost the balance and that's the impact I'm talking about. I do not believe workers should get rich for nothing, but they should see a steady increase in wages like they did from the 1800's through 1970 or so. Once wages stopped growing we became a country mired in household debt that is now choking families and preventing demand from growing. The housing deregulation made it worse by allowing banks to give loans to so many who could not afford them. So banks cried for deregulation, got their way, then screwed the economy as a result.
So who do you blame? Corporate interests? I don't buy that at all. People tend to make their own beds. Over the years (I am 7 I have applied for jobs. Those that did not offer me enough wage, I told it was not sufficient. The who raised their offer were considered. The others were not.
Yes, socialism is the American labor force/s biggest threat. Off shoring has not reduced our jobs, it has helped us eliminate labor intensive jobs but created other jobs to replace the ones lost. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/
Well, I can read bumper stickers. My mistake. You have about as much common sense as a liberal. Sorry if I "mislabeled" you. Whatever it is you've been rambling on about, I guess I don't have a "label" for. If I were to come up with one off the top of my head, I'd get an infraction. So, I'll refrain.
Absolutely corporate interests. People take what they can get at the best they can get it. But it didn't happen because of just one or two employers. It happened across the board. This isn't opinion. It's historically what happened and it's well documented, often discussed in economic discussions and classrooms. We've continued to improve our output per employee without any gain in wages over time. Here's more on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html This is only one source but there are many.
It's easy to claim I don't have common sense but it would be something else entirely to actually demonstrate it. I guess I won't hear any actual arguments against the points I've made. Please do tell me what you had in mind, I won't report it. Coming from you, I'll take it as a compliment.
Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. You simply don't make sense to me. I can't argue your points because I don't understand you. You don't explain yourself very well. I'm just a businessman whose happy to have ownership in real estate as part of my holdings. I protect my property by any lawful means. You seem to have a problem with that. I don't know why.
Simple, your land title is a license to pocket shares of wealth without contributing anything whatever to wealth production, as though it was an oversized welfare check. Now, I'm sure I've written this before in this thread in some way or other, but, for example, as we levy taxes on wealth production (such as income tax, sales tax, etc.), that money is then spend on government provided services and infrastructure. Land where those are provided become more desirable as a result and thus those taxes ultimately crystallize as land value when people compete to live in these locations, meaning that those who own such location essentially end up pocketing other people's taxes. Want live in a location with police protection? Pay a landowner full market value for it. Sewer system? Pay a landowner full market value for it. Hospitals? Pay a landowner full market value for it. Streets? Schools? Yep. And on, and on, and on. Productive contributors to the economy (which the landowner qua landowner isn't since the doesn't produce or provide anything, as the land was already there) essentially have to pay twice for the same: Once in taxes to the government and then again to a landowner to have access to what their taxes already paid for. It's a massive scam.
Sure you do, he is saying that you are collecting rent for infrastructure and services which you do not provide. Did you build the road that provides access to the land you own? NO. Your renters helped pay to build that road, but you charge them more rent because that road is there, as if they haven't already paid for it. You make them pay for the road twice, once in taxes to build the road, and then again in rent to you to access it. Here is what I say, you charge your renters all you can, good for you. But if you want to tie your property to public property like the roadway system, then the community will charge you all it can, and if you don't pay, then that location cannot access public infrastructure. You understand that? You own your land, good for you. But if you want to tie that land to the infrastructure that other peoples taxes paid for, then you should pay all that the market would offer. No pay, no access put a ten foot fence around your land and nobody comes or go's. You want access to public property, then you pay the land value tax, which is set at what the market will bear. If you can charge all the market can bear in rent for your land, why shouldn't the community charge all the market will bear in rent for access to public infrastructure? If it is fair for you, then it would certainly be fair for the community. But you are greedy, and you want others to pay to build the infrastructure, and you want free access to it, so you can charge rents for things which you don't provide.
Recognize that owning real estate is an honorable state. Earning money from real estate is good for you and the economy, not just because of the taxes you pay but also because of the money you spend from your earnings. Non landowners are privileged to use the infrastructure your tax money has financed, to you are also helping the economy by providing infrastructure for others to use and which increases the real estate adjacent to that infrastructure.
That is absolute bullcrap and you know it. Owning land does great positive things for our economy. Just like property taxes fund infrastructure, taxes paid by the land owner. Wrong! The taxes paid by the land owner which creates the original infrastructure is what makes that land desirable. IE first came the land owner, then came the wealth because of the land owner. Yep, and the land owners pay the taxes that fund those police along with all the other citizens. Almost invariably built by the developer and only after the land owner has paid taxes to pay for it. The land owner is the first producer in the economy, and it all started with his taxes which paid for the infrastructure, lured others to the area, brought in industry and business and as the primary (first producer) producer can be proud of all that was accomplished by his original purchase of land. The only scam is run by LVTers who do not recognize the value of land owners. Especially since land owning by fee simple is not so different than simple occupation and paying land taxes, and is no less productive than anyone who occupies and.
Just because you choose to list variables that you believe serve your point, doesn't mean that there aren't other variables which defeat it. You thinking that an imaginative and effective real estate developer cannot increase the value of land makes your post amongst the most stupid on this forum. Walt Disney alone turning swamp land into multi-million dollar property - not just for Walt Disney, but for the cottage industry which sprung up around it - is proof enough that you're utterly clueless.
How does a land owner collect rent without providing services? The infrastructure is there because the land owner paid for it with taxes. My taxes did. The taxes paid to the community that chose to build near my land did. Bullcrap What dream world do you live in? Certainly not the US. Why would that happen to the land owner who paid the original taxes to build that road? That is what I understand. Other people didn't pay for the road, the land owner did. And in many places even today, when the community paves a road adjacent to your land, not only do the taxes you have paid pay for part of it, you may still have to pay for the paving itself. Your dream world is not realistic. Not only does the land owner pay the taxes to build the infrastructure he does so every bit as much as the LVT occupier, and the fee simple owner has rights to exclusively occupy the land, and so does the LVT occupier so long as they both pay their taxes. The land owner pays his fair taxes, just like everyone else. If he produces on his own land good for him. If he makes the land available for someone else who finds the land useful because of the infrastructure paid for by the land owners taxes, the land owner has a right to revenue. Thus goes life. Any community that taxes all of the potential revenue from either land owners or land occupiers will quickly go bankrupt and that community is run by a bunch of idiots. The only greedy are the ones who what to take personally owned land for which the owner paid market price without full compensation. Since the land owners paid the taxes that paid for the infrastructure they should put toll gates at the limit of their property to get revenue from the parasites who want to use the infrastructure the land owners paid for with their taxes.
The geoists also refuse to accept the fact that new development almost always comes with the infrastructure built in and that the land owners are the ones who initially paid for the infrastructure with their property taxes. They also don't like to admit that an LVT occupier who pays his taxes has as much exclusive tenure to the land as a person who owns the land fee simple. None of their argument makes a bit of sense.
I can't believe would think big successful companies/corporations could ever be greedy. Most people know that just isn't the case, nor is it even possible. Corporations are wonderful, responsible, entities that only have the collective good of the populous at heart.
Thanks for that. AND, when I don't have renters, I pay the taxes, mortgage, etc without the benefit of income being produced. I have to keep the property in good condition no matter. I carry the burden of offering a valuable service for a set price.
Wow...what a Godsend, huh? How could the country ever do without people that have so much wealth, humility and wisdom?
Said access has been paid for by tax dollars and continues on. Public infrastructure has been paid for by the public. Therefore, it belongs to anyone who wants to use it. For give my ignorance, oh great one, but who would OWN my land and buildings? If it would be any other name but mine upon the deed, forget it.
You know what? It is you who are advocating a different system of land use that what we have now. The law is against you, the will of the people are against you. And to try to make arguments you use a different set of words and phrases than is usually used to discuss the topic of land ownership. If someone doesn't understand your way of communicating (which sounds like a nutty professor) you name call in an effort to minimize the other person. You have a severe communication problem, a chip on your shoulder, and a superior-than-thou air about you it is no wonder you are frustrated that your points are never well taken. I suggest taking some Carnegie classes.
At times Greed is good !! People should be more giving but the government should not make one give . The greedy hire people to work , I have never been offered work by a poor person.
Hey, we already have a bit of it in place. Eliminate the improvement portion of the property tax, raise the land portion of the tax to near 100% of the land's rental value, give people land tax exemptions (by value). Eliminate income taxation, sales taxation, etc. Voila, no more landowner mooching and a booming economy with the tax burden completely lifted off production! You think abolitionists cared that the law was against them? Also, again, some of it is basically already in place and just needs to be overhauled. Acting against their own self interest, surely. Also, most people haven't been made aware of that option yet. When I talk about it to people I know it's rather easy to turn them around, actually. What words and phrases? Most of it is accepted economic terminology or plain English using accepted dictionary definitions of words. You mean if somebody with a conflict of interest in the current system or experiencing Stockholm syndrome doesn't want to? Sweet. Looking through threads in which I participated you'll see that most of the name calling comes from the other side (socialist, communist, yadi yada). Also, I never intended to make any of this about any poster personally. You, for example, brought yourself into this (being a landlord). Not my fault that you feel insulted. No, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I guess you could say I have a chip in my shoulder on this topic in the same sense that abolitionists had a chip in their shoulder. I'm quite a happy puppy, actually. Hey, I'm not the one bragging about garnishing people's wages, and so on. You not taking them well =/= never well taken. I suggest buying a moral compass.
Gee, and you said you are not for LVT as a single tax. The fact of the matter is, that would be patently unfair and regressive as taxation. Better we continue with property tax which includes the value of improvements and tax at a fair rate. Landowners do not mooch off the economy, they contribute to it. I agree, don't tax production, tax the incomes of people in a progressive manner and stop giving the rich a free ride simply because they don't own land. Fee simple ownership does the same thing as LVT occupation in that it is exclusive and tenured and both require taxation to maintain that exclusiveness. So no advantage for LVT, not even a little bit. Trying to equate landownership to slavery again? Totally fallacious argument. Its a bad option. But what the hey, if you want my land, pay me a reasonable market price and have at it. Your posts have consistently insulted landowners, and in a vile and dastardly manner; especially the characterization of land owners as greedy or parasites. Only the non landowners who did not pay the tax to build the infrastructure could be classified as wanting something for nothing. You have a thinking problem. With strange ideas about the comparability of land owning and slavery. - - - Updated - - - The vast majority of tax money paying for infrastructure comes from landowners.
