I guess you're talking about the sales tax. It would be better for everyone than the income tax. Economists are practically unanimous about that, for whatever it's worth. The problem is no administration can ever afford to give up a major tax, so the sales tax could never replace the income tax. All you could ever do is add the sales tax, which would hurt most of us.
Thank you, but I prefer to remain with the actuality of the problem today as defined by current law in all the countries concerned. The US has never ever evolved from the notion that both mineral and surface property rights were separated by law. Period. Just like it has an antiquated presidential electoral system that is two-and-a-quarter centuries out-dated. Anyone with a modern understanding of election fairness shudders at the thought that a concocted "college of electors" vote could be different from the popular vote, this latter being a fundamental concept of democracy on this planet! Both of which are very strange for a country that virtually lives in the future ...
Your entire case, that mineral rights in the US should be allocated the same way they are in all other nations for the shear fact that that's the way all other nations do it is an infantile appeal to popular opinion.
Of course, gibberish from the Quixotic Right that thinks the Individual is far, far more important than the Collective. The United States, bastion of the belief "life, it's all about me, me, me!" Which is why we are, in fact, a very poor people ...
Prove what you say. Substantiate it! Otherwise you are just farting in a blog with one liners. This is a "debate forum", not a message board.
But, not what's "under" the land. Property rights are surface rights, that's all. The US is the only nation on earth to confuse both property and mineral rights - and it does so because history has shown that, for the extraction of deposits (particularly oil and gas), such a "right" has allowed some to become immensely rich literally overnight. A notion that still captivates us today. Immense riches in the blink-of-an-eye!!! Where, in heaven's name, is the "fairness" in that thinking? I am supposed to send my child off to "defend a nation" that is discriminatory and inequitable? For what? To protect the moneyed interests of a handful of lucky plutocrats who take advantage of a taxation-system that is wholly lopsided and unfair? Nope, I aint that stoopid - go find some other sucker ...
Wow? You're superman? Silly thought that you express above. You do not understand how dependent you are on the whole of the economy. All 320 million of us ...
And you apparently do not know the second of the two meanings for the word as seen in the dictionary: Aka, an "argumentation" ...
Therein lies the problem. Governments, as we know them, are monsters that cannot be restrained(governed). Their authority is arbitrary and only comes to exist in the minds of the governed. We agree that they are an evil, but you go one step further in believing they are a necessary evil with a legitimate function. Once you grant that a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force has a legitimate function, the debate becomes about what that function encompasses, and progressives have, by virtue of your own concession, all the rational standing they need to do everything they have done and will continue to do until its load becomes unsustainable.
The government is a necessary evil because without government the people spend more labor/time fighting over natural resources than they do putting those natural resources to good use. Those who receive the ADVANTAGES of appropriation of land from government should pay for government expenses, as well as pay compensation to those who are disadvantaged by that appropriation. Government makes it possible for people to focus on their work instead of obsessing about whether or not it is safe for them to walk out their door to get the morning paper. So even though our government is corrupt and inefficient, it is still better than no government at all. There are a lot of people on this forum that think governments job should be restricted to just protecting rich, privileged land monopolists from the hoards of starving, landless, slave class that land monopoly creates, but that idea has already been tried, and it failed. So, because regular people like yourself cannot accept the fact that land monopoly is massively destructive to societies ability to produce wealth, we are left with the horrendously inefficient government we have today. "It is obvious that if rent were socialized - that is, publicly collected and used for social purposes - the power of the State would decline, and eventually disappear. The governing body could not hide its inefficiency or corruption behind tax levies. Rent would be the barometer of government's value to the citizenry, and the readings would be quite visible. The producers would be buying social services just as they buy private services or goods. The price would be rent. Government would come into the market. [ ] The socialization of rent would destroy taxes. The State (as we know it) would disappear; and such government as we would have would be always subject to the economic instrument of rent." Frank Chodorov
I would agree that government, defined in the most general sense as restraint, is necessary. You believe that government must take the form of a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force. I don't believe that. I believe it possible for government to take other forms. Since a competitive market in the provision of services always results in better deals for consumers than monopoly of that service, competition is preferable for everyone other than the monopolist. Therefore, we should not support monopolization of anything, including law, dispute resolution, and law enforcement.
What the heck are you talking about? Your post has nothing to do with this OP. - - - Updated - - - "I have also written many times, over many years" just means you have been wrong many times, you are entrenched in your error, and you are too blind (being charitable) to see your concept is utterly ridiculous.
Blah, blah, blah - nothing more intelligent that perfidious sarcasm. Is that all you got in both barrels? Moving right along ...
Nope. The geoist land value tax system will allow more people to own land for two reasons 1) the land value tax punishes people who currently own more land then they can make good use of, which brings idle or under used land into the market, and 2) the geoist land value tax exempts the first portion of land from the tax, so some land can be held by an individual for free. From a legal point of view, the geoist land value tax system guarantees that every living individual citizen of the community will own some land, which they can choose from the market of available land, to enjoy as they wish. Nobody will not own at least some land. For those who choose not to exercise their right to their portion of direct land use, the government will give them a cash settlement as an alternative to owning land directly. Geoism seeks to make everyone a landowner, in the legal sense of the word.
Not if he wants to communicate. Communication depends on AGREED definitions. In most cases that's a dictionary definition. If technical terms are needed, they should be defined according to the requirements of the subject. Thanks. Me too.
