We need to replace all taxes with a land value tax

If you buy a drink in a bar you have paid Federal state and local taxes so, if you are into mass disenfranchisement that is hardly the way to do it.

 

Perhaps I should have stated "Federal or State income tax", and property, school, or other taxes assessed locally. A homeless drunkard who begs on the street may pay taxes when he acquires his bottle of liquor, but the money he spends was earned by someone else. Of course there are those who consider begging a form of employment. The point I was trying to make is that if it is the efforts of someone else who is providing your means of existence, then you're much more likely to vote for someone who is promoting providing you with more, with the exception of a job.

 

From what context? The one you don't want to understand?

"I've come to realize that the biggest problem anywhere in the world is that people's perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of what they want, and do not want, to be true." - Travis Walton

 

Solving problems, not likely, imposing ones desires upon another without their consent, malum prohibitum.

 

How about if voting was restricted to only those who own five acres of land?
That's what the founding fathers started with as a compromise with the southern negotiators who were keen to keep the 80% of the population in the south who were tenant farmers and renters from voting against them, being the landowners. Unfortunately for that idea, it did nothing but enrage northerners, many of whom met the criteria but were really angry that their friends and neighbours were so arbitrarily disenfranchised.

Besides, how exactly would your idea be enacted on the ground?
Would prospective voters be required to show proof of tax payments to the registrar of voters before every election?
Would the spouses and grown children of people who pay those taxes also be allowed to vote?
Would someone who paid income tax but got it all back when they filed their tax return be allowed to vote?
What documents would someone like that be required to produce to register to vote?
What if someone paid none of those taxes but owed them, would they be allowed to vote?

How precisely arbitrary would you make this requirement?

 

To answer each of the boldened questions:
Yes
Both spouses would vote based on the tax payments of the working spouse. Voting age children would have to show they pay taxes.
You either pay taxes or you don't. If taxes were collected, but refunded totally you've paid no taxes.
A receipt could be issued by the IRS, State and local tax collectors which would be used to show eligibility to vote.
If you owe taxes, and haven't paid them you would not have a receipt.

It would be compulsory, not arbitrary. But the point I was trying make is that people will continue to vote to get something that someone else, future generations, are being made responsible to pay for as long as government borrows to provide what they cannot produce through immediate taxation. If government wants to budget FY spending of $4 trillion it should raise the tax rates for that fiscal year to assure collecting $4.5 trillion or more with the excess going to pay down the debt.

 

What's wrong with a fair tax?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

 

FairTax would be an improvement over the income tax, I will grant you that, but the overwhelming issue with a high consumption tax such as the FairTax is it's tendency to discourage consumption and stall the economy.

There are other problems as well, such as the inherent regressivism embedded in such a tax, the difficulty of enforcing such a tax and preventing tax evasion, the inevitable rise of black markets for untaxed goods, and so on.

 

I believe only real persons have a "right to fail" and be bailed out by artificial persons through a general tax to fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

 

Please, you're splitting my sides with all this humor. So let me expound on what is so funny, where shall we start? Ah, taxes. So now you want another gun held to the head of the average citizen, as if the IRS didn't already have enough guns, how's that Odumbocare tax working out? So for the IRS to administer this tax, how would they provide such receipts? Are you even aware of what a receipt would imply? Obviously not, but I'll give you a hint, it can be found in the UCC.

And now those good old worthless Federal Reserve notes, haven't a clue what they really are, do you? I take that being the prior question is not comprehended, then to ask what that debt actually represents would be way too much? Why do you actually think the government borrows? If it didn't borrow, how would it get the additional tolls?

Now the national debt, it is not real and never meant to be paid off. It is a fraud designed to steal the wealth of a nation and so far they have done pretty good. They make digital entries into a ledger thus creating "notes" that are lent at interest (didn't print that interest), then shrink the "note" supply and foreclose on real assets. The poor get poorer and the rich steal the wealth. Sorry, didn't mean to go so far over your head, but there are a couple that will understand.

 

Fair tax? What level of slavery do you deem as fair?

Taxation is the claim that a group of people who call themselves "government" have been given the "right" to confiscate an arbitrarily-chosen percentage of the product of another individual's labor (a form of property), whether or not the other agrees to share that product voluntarily. Taxation is enforced by the threat of violence (behavior resulting in bodily harm) or imprisonment (the taking away of physical freedom of movement) from those from whom the product is being seized attempt to resist the confiscation. This practice is always "justified" (made into a right) by those who claim that such a practice is necessary and required to "uphold the common good". If we define slavery as the involuntary confiscation of one hundred percent of the product of the labor of another human being, we can clearly see that there is no magical percentage to which we could lower this number (other than zero percent) that would no longer constitute slavery. If we are being honest with ourselves, taxation is merely a euphemism for theft, violence, and slavery, the practices upon which it is actually based. Since no individual anywhere on earth has the "right" to claim ownership of the product of another's labor such behavior can never be "delegated" to a group and called a "right".

 

You didn't go over my head, but the post of mine you attempted to respond to appears to have went well over your head. Looking back over some of your earlier posts in this thread you seem to have no intent to contribute anything of value and instead exert much effort to castigate the posts of those you responded to. Although I actually found one of your posts, #74 which gave me reason to think that you might possibly have something of value to contribute, but you left it hanging. Maybe you should go back and read your own post #74 again and elaborate. Perhaps you might then show you can dazzle us with some brilliance as I can listen to a politician if I want to be baffled by bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Please, it does seem this is all over your head. What's the matter the questions too hard for you? Your entire proposition is at best childish but more realistically just a grasp at a straw little understood. To make it simple:

So when you get over your little childish tantrum, go ahead, answer the questions.

 

Who's the one displaying a childish tantrum?
Let me play your game for a moment and respond to your inane questions, and then perhaps you will elaborate on the one post you made which I felt could have led to some intelligent discussion, your post #74.


Your questions in bold:
"where shall we start?"
Let's try taxes
"So now you want another gun held to the head of the average citizen, as if the IRS didn't already have enough guns, how's that Odumbocare tax working out?"
What 'other' gun are you referring to? I'm unaffected by Obamacare, but hope it will be totally eliminated.
"So for the IRS to administer this tax, how would they provide such receipts?"
The IRS currently administers the ONLY tax I've referred to; it's called the Federal income tax. Receipts could be mailed.
"Are you even aware of what a receipt would imply?"
What does a receipt normally imply? Payment made.
"And now those good old worthless Federal Reserve notes, haven't a clue what they really are, do you?"
Yes, they are simply pieces of paper with a numeric value printed upon them with no intrinsic value at all.
"I take that being the prior question is not comprehended, then to ask what that debt actually represents would be way too much?"
If you feel the previous question was not comprehended, explain. That debt, like any debt, represents spending which exceeded the means available.
"Why do you actually think the government borrows?"
There are several reasons, one is because it creates spending programs which exceed the means provided by the tax system. Two, a constantly devaluing dollar allows it to spend money today at a higher value and lower cost than the debt it will represent in the future.
"If it didn't borrow, how would it get the additional tolls?"
Tolls? Assuming money, the only way it gets more is to raise taxes. Printing and borrowing is simply a devaluation tax on those who try to save.

Now, might you make a try of engaging in some intelligent discussion? Please do try and elaborate on your post #74, as it actually could lead to some intense rational discussion.

 

Is it still a secret to many people that the income tax exists to finance government debt and, more problematically, eliminate the need for government to convince the public to finance warfare and other government spending voluntarily?

 

Do you know what a "fair tax" is? It eliminates all other taxes except sales tax. Sales tax would be raised.

Yes, the government needs an income to pay it's employees, maintain it's facilities, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would you propose the government run without an income? A fair tax would eliminate all taxes except sales taxes. Sales taxes would be around 20-25%.

 

Well, this is the only GOOD argument I've read in regards to being against a Fair Tax. Lol. It seems like a lot of people don't even know what it is.

I don't think people are going to stop buying goods. They would have more income to spend on goods if income tax was eliminated. Some states have no state income taxes (though still have federal, etc.) and seem to do just fine without them. People would have more disposable income with a Fair tax.

 

Yes, I know what a FairTax is lol. I try to be educated about the topics I discuss. Not everyone does though, unfortunately.

We are basically in agreement about ending the income tax. The point of contention here, it seems, is what to replace it with. As I said before, I do believe instituting the FairTax will stall the economy. The rate in which the consumption tax would have to be to make up for the income tax (and all the other taxes the FT claims it can replace) will raise more than a few eyebrows at the register. It may be as simple as someone buying one pair of jeans instead of three. But who knows what kind of devastating effects that kind of newfound frugalness en masse could have on our economy. We are a consumption-based economy. And one thing taxes are famous for is discouragement. From whatever is being taxed. Whether it's labor, consumption, or whatever. That's precisely why sin taxes exist. Take the same underlying principles in a sin tax, and then apply that to the FairTax and you will understand my skepticism.

The reason I like the LVT (as proposed in the OP) so much is because it is exempt from that sort of thing. People will always live on land. There's really no way to avoid that unless you launch yourself off the planet lol. So the only thing that would be discouraged is land hoarding, which is only a positive because we need room for our ever-growing population anyway.

 

Childish, inane, let's see.

Other gun, do you have any clue whatsoever of the function of the IRS? Do you understand coercion? If you must question "what other gun", then obviously not.

So you have no idea of what a receipt would imply and why the IRS could never in this life time issue one. I would actually consider declaring myself a "taxpayer" to get my hands on one of those receipts.

Really, so you haven't a clue? The first hint is in the title, can you get that one? The second is in the definition on the face, find that one? Figured it out yet? And how can you say they have no intrinsic value, what with being a taxpayer and all.

Comprehend, "to grasp the nature, significance, or meaning of".

"Modern monetary systems have a fiat base -- literally money by decree -- with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." While no individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment, exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation as to why money is accepted is that the federal government requires it as payment for tax liabilities. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollars." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

"money would vanish without debt

It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence. That's right, there would not be one penny in circulation -- all coins and all paper currency would be returned to bank vaults -- and there would be not one dollar in any one's checking account. In short, all money would disappear.

Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s. Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933. This is the exchange that followed.

ECCLES: We created it.
PATMAN: Out of what?
ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.
PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit?
ECCLES: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.

It must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt." G. Edward Griffin, The Mandrake Mechanism

Well at least the mechanism would be correct while the answer is far from true. Do you have any clue as to what would happen if congress would tell the "taxpayers" they would have to fork over an additional $1 trillion plus per year, representing a doubling of the taxes.

Intelligent discussion? How? It seems that you don't have even a rudimentary grasp of the subject matter so where is this intelligent discussion going to come from?

Elaborate, what is there to elaborate on, it says it all. I would suggest you do some homework as to just what it means.

 

The big secret is not really that but the slavery of the people. The Fed generates money out of thin air and the IRS collects taxes to pay the interest on that thin air. The real crime is the theft of a man's soul, his labor, for the furtherance of another's greed.

Taxation is the claim that a group of people who call themselves "government" have been given the "right" to confiscate an arbitrarily-chosen percentage of the product of another individual's labor (a form of property), whether or not the other agrees to share that product voluntarily. Taxation is enforced by the threat of violence (behavior resulting in bodily harm) or imprisonment (the taking away of physical freedom of movement) from those from whom the product is being seized attempt to resist the confiscation. This practice is always "justified" (made into a right) by those who claim that such a practice is necessary and required to "uphold the common good". If we define slavery as the involuntary confiscation of one hundred percent of the product of the labor of another human being, we can clearly see that there is no magical percentage to which we could lower this number (other than zero percent) that would no longer constitute slavery. If we are being honest with ourselves, taxation is merely a euphemism for theft, violence, and slavery, the practices upon which it is actually based. Since no individual anywhere on earth has the "right" to claim ownership of the product of another's labor such behavior can never be "delegated" to a group and called a "right". Therefore, all forms of taxation are always wrong according to natural law.

 

I would suggest that perhaps it is you that is confused over "fair tax".

Taxation is the claim that a group of people who call themselves "government" have been given the "right" to confiscate an arbitrarily-chosen percentage of the product of another individual's labor (a form of property), whether or not the other agrees to share that product voluntarily. Taxation is enforced by the threat of violence (behavior resulting in bodily harm) or imprisonment (the taking away of physical freedom of movement) from those from whom the product is being seized attempt to resist the confiscation. This practice is always "justified" (made into a right) by those who claim that such a practice is necessary and required to "uphold the common good". If we define slavery as the involuntary confiscation of one hundred percent of the product of the labor of another human being, we can clearly see that there is no magical percentage to which we could lower this number (other than zero percent) that would no longer constitute slavery. If we are being honest with ourselves, taxation is merely a euphemism for theft, violence, and slavery, the practices upon which it is actually based. Since no individual anywhere on earth has the "right" to claim ownership of the product of another's labor such behavior can never be "delegated" to a group and called a "right". Therefore, all forms of taxation are always wrong according to natural law.

Within the confines of the constitution, there are but two means of taxation; a fee for services, indirect taxes; and direct taxes upon the states by capitation. This system generated so much tax that the government had to start giving it away to foreign nations.

But you are right, sales tax would be raised and raised and raised. And what makes you think ALL other taxes would be eliminated. Does that mean the Fed would be eliminated? Not likely so there is one tax not eliminated.

 

Well, what I said and what you're saying certainly strike near if not on the same mark. We're talking about people being controlled by a few organised thugs, which really is the story of human society for as long as our knowledge stretches back. This country was exceptional for a little while following its founding, considering how free (in the liberal sense) it was and how small the government was. The nation as it exists today bears very little resemblance to that. Now it's worse by far than what the settlers once fled from in the Old World, while the Old World has matured into a better place even with their high taxes. At least they have a better environment and standard of living, and receive superior services from their governments, relative to what we have here. They have genuinely affordable health care and a nice public transportation system, for example. They tax the hell out of people to finance wars and banksters, although I think the bankster problem is now a growing one for them as well.

 

Yes we are, but I'm not sure I agree about the "Old World". Their problems are far worse than ours. Socialism is very rampant and their collapse, which will happen, would be the trigger for ours. Bankster, thug, same difference.

Man, through ignorance has been slaves for all eternity, first by the church, then by the monarchs, the merchants and the bankers. And ours is but a freak of nature due to the time, a few years later and we would have possibly become just another monarchy a few centuries before history catches up.

 

Can we ever escape these patterns, though? Humans do behave in certain ways in numbers. We naturally form certain hierarchies, for example, with leaders and followers, manipulators and those who fall for their wiles, those seeking security and those offering it to them.. How free can we ever really be? Collectively it seems impossible, but the alterantive is a lack of society and the many benefits it provides.

 

Why not, during the American Revolution, only 3% actually started the change, the rest just fought for the idea. And even now, it is an individual thing. Most wait for the masses and that isn't going to happen. Probably one of the only things I ever agree with Romney was the 47% thing, 47% of the population is worthless. Beyond that and including the 47%, I would estimate 80% of the population live in fear of doing the right thing. Of the remaining 20%, only about 2% and growing ever so slowly are willing to stand.