We need to replace all taxes with a land value tax

Are you really that naive?

"Properly applied, Land Value Tax would support a whole range of social and economic initiatives, including housing, transport and other infrastructural investments. It is an elementary fiscal measure that would go far towards correcting fundamental economic and social ills."

Just what do you think this means? From Britain, one of the more socialist leaning (US getting there) nations in the world. When you skip around all that crap that was posted and really think about it, please explain to me what this will do to the price of food, you know that stuff that grows on large parcels of land? Or would there need to be classifications of differing values, no favoritism there, is there?

You support a tax that would rob many from their most prized possession but then disdain someone that supports another ill-informed tax, really?

 

Personal attacks really don't advance the discussion at all.

Seems fairly obvious to me. But I'll bite, what do you think it means?

It will do nothing. Literally nothing. Because, as I've stated at least three times now, an LVT is a tax on the unimproved value of land. Growing corn would not raise your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing taxes under an LVT.

How does it rob anyone? Explain that to me, please.

I do not disdain you. Expressing disagreement with a position of yours does not presuppose disdain or hatred of you personally, or even your position itself.

 

Well, that pretty much answers that question.

You'll bite, well it seems not as you have asked for someone to tell you what you think it means.

But it was a quote from your source, so did you just ignore it's implications? You come back with an obscene gesture, why, unable to defend something other than to resort to a bully tactic. As you seem to little understand the whole concept, just how can you come out with such a bold declaration.?

"Gerald Starnes, Jr. of Twentieth Century Motor Company in Starnesville, Wisconsin speaks to hard-hat workers saying that all of you must now work to the best of your abilities, work the hardest you can every day. At the end of the day, all of your wages will be pooled and whoever needs the money the most gets the largest share – decreed by their word alone. Do you agree? is the question posed. Everyone bobs their head in agreement like drug-induced no-minds. All but one, John Galt, stands on a back bleacher and revolts quietly against the proposed collectivist maxim of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

"I don't," said John Galt, who quietly stood up in his place." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

If you can't see it, then no amount of explaining will ever help. All you need to know is within the source, but it seems to not register.

It wasn't me that you showed disdain, it was another expressing their opinion that while as ill-conceived as yours would still not be as damaging. His option amounts to just robbery, yours is for total slavery.

 

It is all well and good to have principles but the reality of the world is that trying to force your particular principles on people who will categorically reject them is more likely than not to end up in tears for everyone. The characterization of every view as extreme removes the middle ground, which is the only place where there is a chance that all sides will make the compromises needed to insure social, political and economic harmony, and the only place where your views might have some lasting impact.

History is littered with examples of fanatical uncompromising tyrannical regimes, all of which are no longer with us. The principles that drove them were long ago dismissed or forgotten or grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented throughout the ages by adventurers in tyrannical rule seeking to replicate their power. Much of the current trouble in the world is due to people who think like that and you are one of them.

Is this really necessary?

 

What does this have to do with the post and when did you believe that I am somehow your slave? If you do not like what I write, then you are free to not read it.

AS for misinterpreted and misrepresented, by what claim are you asserting some supreme and divine right to say what is or isn't? So, yes it is necessary.

 

The US constitution doesn't permit a land value tax.

 

Hiya Longshot.

Care to back that statement up?

 

Hm, I was going to cite this: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

But after looking at the wording, "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises", I'm thinking that maybe the word "taxes" is an open barn door. That could include any tax I suppose.

So, in short, I guess I can't back it up.

 

Thanks for being honest.

 

Otherwise, what's the point?

 

You are asking one to prove a negative which can't be done. So how about you proving the positive and show where it does!!!! All powers in the constitution are enumerated, please show that one.

You can't because it doesn't exist.

 

"lay and collect taxes". Article I, section 8. Land value tax is a tax, no?

 

Err, when one makes a claim the burden of proof is on them. Not the other way around.

The power to tax doesn't exist?

 

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

 

You might guess that you are wrong simply because taxes is a fundamental requirement for civilization.

If our founders had devised a way around that, it wouldn't have been kept quiet.

 

Since everything the government does is done via the initiation of aggression (including collecting taxes), I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything it does and seeking ways private citizens could could accomplish those functions via voluntary cooperation. This would reduce government costs, reducing the need for taxes.

 

You almost completed the statement, you just forgot part two, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

But let's not forget that lovely 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This amendment does not imply what many think it does and has been confirmed by the mystical beings in their black robes so many times they refuse to cert any more cases against the 16th Amendment, "This amendment conveys no new taxation." And it doesn't.

 

Please explain how "part two" is relevant/important to the subject of a land value tax.

 

We do this somewhat. First, we try to solve problems that really exist - that is, problems where private response has been inadequate. (Obviously, we don't all agree on which problems these are, but we do all follow this principle.)

Some of what the feds do is a matter of coordination. For example, qualified charitable organizations can administer parts of our safety net features.

Plus, volunteers can step up and save taxes going to our safety net features by simply providing those services themselves. My father opened a "half way house" for those coming out of state incarceration, providing some support for housing and hopefully reducing recidivism - which is incredibly expensive. Local groups operate food banks. Etc.

There is nobody blocking your idea.

 

Good on your father for opening his halfway house. That's exactly the sort of private, voluntary cooperation that I'm talking about.

My point is that I oppose the initiation of aggression, including initiations of aggression by the government. Thus, I'd take a hard look at everything the government does and eliminate what we can.

 

I've never heard of anyone who disagreed with you on the desirability of contributing our personal efforts toward public problems. And, every congressman knows they would benefit from cutting unneeded expenditures.

However, I think you characterized taxes as aggression in a previous post. But, taxes are required for civilization to exist.

It really isn't legitimate to characterize every civilization in history as committing aggression against its population simply because of the fact that taxes are a requirement of civilization.

 

The fact that we, as a society, haven't figured out a way to eliminate taxes doesn't mean that they aren't an initiation of aggression. You take the property of another. That's aggression. Since they are an initiation of aggression, and therefore wrong (to those who consider the initiation of aggression wrong), I would endeavor to eliminate taxes to the greatest extent possible.

 

This is still just nonsense and platitude.

You say "to the greatest extent possible" - which is an admission that taxes are required. Otherwise you wouldn't qualify your statement. Calling taxes "violence" is nonsense. Our civilization comes with a gigantic set of legislation that imposes on your every move. You have no justification for singling out taxes. You might as well call our entire civilization to be an exercise in "violence" - including our constitution.


Besides, everybody (EVERYBODY) is interested in low taxes. The only difference of opinion comes from our variety of though on what is important for our society to buy.

How's THIS for a difference of opinion on taxes: There are people who think it was imperative for us to conquer Iraq. There are others who think there are more important things we could have bought with the TRILLIONS of dollars that cost us. I have some ideas about what I might have done with the MORE than $10,000 that is my share of that conquest.


Your platitude just doesn't address that (any of it - not just "that war"). Yet, THAT is the level at which we decide how much wealth is required to run our civilization.

 

I actually don't think that taxes are required for civilization to exist, but I acknowledge that you and many others think they are. Also, I agree that taxes are only one way in which the government initiates aggression. I just single them out here because this thread is about taxation.

 

How about requiring proof of having paid Federal tax in order to vote in Federal elections, proof of having paid State tax in order to vote in State elections, and proof of having paid local taxes in order to vote in local elections? And any taxes paid have to exceed any local, State or Federal provided benefits received.