How Long Should the US Government Sustain an Economically Unsustainable Middle Class?

In socialism, I couldn't own a business privately. Geoism doesn't say that. It says that land should, in some ways, be a public good.

 

In effect it does. If you can't own property to place your business on, and you're forced to lease the land you base your business on, you're effectively leasing the business.

And since all businesses are dependent on land and the capital invested in that land, all businesses become leased...

About the only exception are service-based internet businesses.

 

Are you sure about this?

 

He may mean under forms of Communism.

 

Have you considered that this may be why the liberals and Obama are so down on fossil fuels? I mean, if there's no energy to drive the machines that drive the economy while replacing the blue collar middle class worker; Shut off the power. Return the menial labor to middle class laborers.

 

LEASING is more expensive than purchasing...

 

WHERE, exactly, does the government "SUSTAIN the middle class"?

$200/mo in food stamps and 96 weeks of a few hundred bucks per week on unemployment does NOT and NEVER HAS "sustained" the middle class!

 

Okay? The idea of an LVT is to replace income and excise taxes with a tax on land value. That could easily be structured as a government with establishes communal ownership of all land, then offers parcels of said land which are leased for fixed terms to interested parties. This would no doubt be far more expensive than buying land, but it's meant to raise revenue for a community.

The idea behind this is that most of what the government does is done to build value for property owners, and therefore the owners of property ought to be the people that cover the cost of those improvements. So yes, leasing the land from the government would cost far more than the current system... but you would have no income or consumption taxes either...

 

This is really absurd.

Believing government can easily commandeer all the private land is the USA is a pipe-dream!

Most of what government does IS NOT 'build value for property owners'!

 

Not really.

It would require amending the constitution, sure. A political impossibility in this climate. It's more likely to be the result of a collapse of the United States government than any sort of reform undertaken by the government itself.

That's pretty much what all government do; they either move money around in the economy or they build value for property owners. Even the former function might be considered a method of building value for property owners because it makes higher population densities possible, which increases the value of land. That's a rather indirect perspective on the matter, however.

Every road the government builds, every hospital it provides a loan to build, every tax break it offers a factory, every bullet it buys to defend that land, every zoning ordinance it passes so as to keep the pig farms away, all of it protects or expands the value of land... which property owners basically get to pocket.

 

You do realize that even if you can't commandeer all the private property, and you can't change the Constitution, that if it made any sense whatsoever, the government can tax property today in lieu of income taxes.

But, you really need to evaluate the cause and effect of taxation. Where taxation is applied, and to what amounts, definitely can impact commerce. For example, if the US government wanted to tax each gallon of diesel and gasoline an additional $2, this will cause critical problems for people and the economy.

I can only surmise that the primary reason why we tax just about everything that moves, and even inanimate things, is because government does not want the public to know how much tax is actually being collected. If we were to do away with the 1000 taxes and replace this with 1 tax, and find out each American owes $11K per year in federal taxation ($44K for a family of four), Americans would have a (*)(*)(*)(*)-fit!

But...none of this has much to do with the thread topic of sustaining the 'so-called' and 'political' middle-class...

 

An LVT isn't really a normal property tax, which is applied to improvements built upon land in addition to the land itself. For example, property tax includes the value of the house built upon a plot in addition to the value of the plot, whereas the LVT would just be assessing a value for the plot required to fund the operation of the governments that control it.

In other words, an LVT works from the opposite perspective of a normal property tax. Where a normal property tax is levied against land that already has a developed value, an LVT is assessed on land upon which value is then developed. Meaning that you don't have to pay tax on the developments--or your labor.

Which is why it probably makes more sense to organize such a thing as communal leasing agreements, not as a property tax. There are other proposals for implementing an LVT, I am simply proposing a socialist method.

Taxing land (but not developments) has no such disruptive effect; it's the main reason for wanting to organize land ownership in such a way. And no, the government really shouldn't be analyzing any such thing. The purpose of a tax ought to be raising sufficient revenue to fund the operation of the government; that's it. Trying to influence the economy through adjustments to the tax code is ineffective and immoral.

Do you think the government ought to be intervening in your private business? If not, why on earth would you support the government trying to "analyze" various methods of taxation so as to apply pressures towards certain activities and away from others? The tax ought to be levied in a way that efficiently raises revenue for the government; with no other concerns.

No, the government does that because the government is forced to rely on income and excise taxes; such taxes are difficult to structure in a way that effectively captures revenue. Which means that the government is forced to adopt something of a shotgun approach to taxation where they tax everything a little bit in order to try to recover some revenue even when people try to avoid the larger taxes.

Note; another advantage of an LVT is that it is virtually impossible to avoid paying tax on land. You can't take your land offshore, or push it into the underground economy.

I don't think anyone would particularly care if that's how the government habitually collected taxes. However, taxes ought not to be evenly distributed because the benefits of government spending are disproportionately directed at property owners and business operators.

It has quite a lot to do with sustaining the middle class, because the middle class is dependent on a functional society. While society does not actually require a government, capitalism does, which means that as long as people embrace capitalism, we have to worry about funding the government.

 

Its humerus when the politicians talk about sustaining them middle class because their actions do the exact opposite. Especially when it comes to monetary policy. This is the largest reason for the shrinking middle class and greater gap between rich and poor. Investments such as stocks and commodities rise with inflation, when you are heavily investing your wealth you are gain to gain more with inflation (look at the returns in the stock market and things such as gold and silver over the last two years). Now when you are poor and lower middle class more and more of your disposable income goes to purchasing food, gas, and other necessities as inflation hits. This of course means less money to invest as well as less money to use for leisure. Less money spent on leisure pursuits means less jobs for lower and middle class people, and you get a sluggish economy.

We have already started to see inflation creeping up even as the fed says its not really there, just like the housing market burst this too is going to hit the "never wrong" economic planners in the government unaware. They will have to decide what to do after its too late. The useful idiots will demand government fix another problem they created by wanting to give them more power and we will continue on down the road toward serfdom. Its going to be messy when they have to raise interest rates to try and take money out of the system. Selling new treasuries at under 3% will become impossible and the interest on our debt will balloon past almost every other part of the budget.

Another centrally planned large government will meet its end. And once again most humans will be completely shocked.

 

How long will Silicon pretend he understands economics? How long will he bow to his rulers and pretend he knows that America was doomed to fall into 3rd world feudalism?

A long time, I imagine.

 

How long should the government sustain an economically unsustainable wealthy class?

 

So. Hmmm. What do you think is being done for the Middle Class that is not being done for the rich? How much of the stimulus or bailout money do you think went to the Middle Class? Do try to educate yourself a bit. How much do you think that compares to the total unemployment benefits paid over the last two years?
What are "Working Welfare" programs?
Whatever they are, how do you think they compare to say, Big Oil subsidies, tax breaks that enable off-shoring of income and so on?
Or are government handouts, welfare etc... only defined as FOX, Drudge etc... tell you they are?

 

Obama voter, allow me to have a laugh.

 

What the federal government should provide is a stable currency, a simple fair tax code, and national defense. That way no one class is given an advantage.

That said the vast majority of people in high places in government are wealthy, is it any surprise they look out for themselves first? We should be looking at eliminating and restraining the powers of the federal government so they can't play favorites. Unfortunately both Republicans and Democrats have too many sheep who like to stay in the two party pen and support their rich masters.

 

All over your faces. This is what is happening. Deny and bow to corrupt democrats if you'd like. We all know who funded Obama, it's one of the few bits of transparency that Mr. Transparency and Peace has yet to shut down. He's taken total advantage of the "liberal" party, and you should all be very angry.

 

Please do! it's not like you would be able to counter or even directly address any points made. Mindless drones can NEVER do such things! So enjoy your laugh little one. After all, it's all you have.
Oh and btw, although I am an independent and have actually voted Republican more than Dem inpresidentail elections, I am definitely voting Obama this year. The idiot pool the GOP offers, combined with their insane social agenda, hijacking by Right Wing whackjobs and inability to address issues (like their lemming followers), makes the choice easy this year.

 

Yeah,its never Working Class welfare as their isn't any,is the middle class priviledged under capitialism ,well Doh!

Without the consultancy fees ,university tenures ,PROTECTED GOVERNMENT POSITIONS,Government grants ,and ownership of petty social property as well as the must have individual lifestyle choices,ect ect to see the middle Class is to see Britany Speers and Paris Hilton.

and in the OECD Nations to see the middle class is to see a class exiting the stage of History ,as the 2 great Classes in relation to mass Production face off.

With the Middle Class chirping on the Historical sidelines.

 

it was a very popular thing to be in 2007,everyone was a Obama Voter then ,oh what a difference a disaster of a first term makes .

the only thing Obama has going for him is the Tearepublican Opposition.The choice will be as it was between one putrid corrupt bunch of Capitialist "Yes men" ,or the stupid and Putrid corrupt bunch of Capitialist "Yes men".

as to whom is the stupid putrid Capitialist and the just plain Corrupt putrid capitialist Politicans its not even a matter of degree anymore .

Otherthrow the political duopoly or accept austerity?

 

Middle Class = Too big to fail.

 

Okey dokey. Quick with petty insults and inane bullshet but not big on issues or topics. Got it.

Oh what the hell, let's see where you're at. So who would you vote for and why?

 

In my opinion, our elected representatives to government should be better promoting and providing for the general welfare by ensuring public policy choices engender a positive multiplier effect.