Quote:
Originally Posted by stekim
Actually, the taxing land thing would make liberals nuts. Because the 3 richest people on Earth would be paying next to nothing in taxes, while Iowa corn farmers would be paying through the teeth. They couldn't actually afford to produce anything. You would have a massive disparity in taxes. Keep in mind that taxes have to be paid in cash and the mere fact you have land does not mean you are generating any cash.
|
That would explain why the more famous people to like it lately were conservatives (Buckley and Churchill)... but still I think once you get around all that...
I'm against farm subsidies anyway.
And I don't think rich liberals should be subject to different laws from rich conservatives or get in the way of a good idea.
But to be honest, I'm not even married to the idea. I just think it's good food for thought.
I do think land and natural resources are no one's actual earned product and function better as public goods. I also think income tax, while a necessary evil in the current system, is a drain on productivity (and I don't think sales tax is much better).
I can also see expanding the logic to tax for pollution as that is a use of unowned natural resource (air, water, or whatever).
There must be some plausible way to push the tax burden from individuals' labor to the use of nature's resources... which are themselves a public good and thus make a great and just way to raise money for other public goods.
Really it kills everyone's ability to whine about taxes (not actually taken from individuals) while setting taxes to market values of particular goods (thus limiting the total power of taxation)...
But there's just that matter that people seem to think nature is itself a commodity that belongs to people who buy it from whoever ultimately STOLE it in the first place! Despite the fact that its use affects the whole human race!