We need to replace all taxes with a land value tax

Well yeah, it's only right to fear when you don't have proper numbers or organisation and you're up against this:



I got this from here: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/02/the-case-for-disarming-the-police/

... where it even says: … there was no such thing as police officers when the Constitution was written. Seriously.

It's hard to appreciate just how much things have changed.

 

And we saw, obviously there was no point in responding to any of the pointless tirade while noticing that you totally ignored the one question I asked of you. No need to respond as I see that pursuing intelligent conservation evades you.

 

How many people signed up for our wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror. Why is the right not insisting on signed contracts for each of those public policies?

 

Next you will be wanting us to limit participation in government to those who own land (particularly white male land owners). That's what we had before the Civil War, dude.

 

Statist is to conservatives like bible thumping racist ignorant slobs are to liberals and the rest of humanity. Only problem is, there are no statists, its a made up term.

 

not at all; i believe in States and the Statism they must resort to, even if only to play shell-games.

 

To put things in perspective, little Afghanistan, defeated Russia and now the US. Iraq and all those other little nations where we have lost. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, when the time comes all will not be as bad as it seems. Their are over 180 million gun owners in this nation.

 

How very true, when you discover someone capable of intelligent conversation, send them my way. Meanwhile, I would suggest you become versed in the subject matter before asking for intelligent conversation.

 

Tax per house. Wow Gore would be broke.

 

Well, I would say that your opinion is extremely biased not to mentioned ill informed.

 

You'd have to assume that a land value tax meets Henry George's criteria. We've rejected that notion for some time: there simply won't be sufficient revenue from it. When they've tried to increase revenues we've shifted to rather uncomfortable territory (such as a poll tax).

The lesson is simple. Should we use a land value tax? Yes. But it provides no means to replace the income tax. You're also wrong about the discouraged labour effect. The overall effect of the income tax is ambiguous, given labour supply schedules are backward bending

 

I said all OTHER taxes. Key word here "other." Sales tax would be raised to 20% to 25% on purchases.

Sorry, but the government would not be able to operate without money. Are you suggesting we have no federal government or what?

I don't know where you live but, NO, people are not threatened with bodily harm for not paying their taxes. Usually what happens is portion (and only a PORTION) of your wages would be garnished to pay those taxes that you refused to pay, unless of course you are up to other "criminal activities."

Yes, it would be very nice if we didn't have to pay any taxes at all, but that is a pipe dream and not at all based in reality.

 

I wouldn't agree with that perspective. Sounds way too much like the theory of the elites! Hierarchy is rarely about nature. Its typically imposed. Of course I was brought up in a commune environment...

 

Generally speaking, people tend that way, I find. Where there's a group there will come to be a leader or perhaps a plurality of leaders. Where there is a community there will come to be value judgments, roles, status. Absolute equality would actually have to be imposed artificially and just wouldn't work. We, like every other social animal species, form hierarchies in order to create a working society. It's in our DNA, I'd say.

 

When the people of the several states created the union, they delegated to it a very small set of powers. If you look at the powers delegated, it seems insane that the federal government would need to collect a fifth to a quarter of every sale in country.

Standard of weights and measures? That's already done. Coin money? They could charge a fee for people wishing to have their specie minted into coins. Post roads and offices? They could charge postal fees to fund these.

I mean really you're talking about the army and the navy. And since we're not at war, the army could be significantly scaled back, relying more on state militias to defend the states from invasion.

 

Well, let's keep in mind that times have changed a LOT since those times and it is more expensive to run a government. With the state of affairs around the world, I certainly would not feel comfortable with defunding or cutting back on our military in any way.

 

Putting aside the military for the moment, which of congress' other enumerated powers require high levels of taxation to fund?

 

I know what you're getting at here, but there are a lot more areas that the feds are involved in now. Even though you may disagree with some or all of those, a lot of other people do not. Not to mention, they have employees to pay too. Things are a lot more complicated than they were back in early 1900s.

 

The commune I knew had no problems. You'd have to assume that some sort of sample selection operated where the more co-operative were attracted to it. I personally would argue that our co-operative nature is easily 'dominant' within particular environments. Thus, hierarchy is often the off-shoot of dog eat dog capitalism: i.e. imposed, rather than being natural

 

Tell me what is fair about your supposed "Fair Tax"?

It seems you have little real knowledge of just what determines money except for a total support of slavery. Your ideal is to use a different gun but a gun none the less.

But it seems from your statements you live in some dream world with no concept of what is actually happening. And people wonder just why things have deteriorated to the level they have.

I don't even want to ask what your definition of "criminal" would be but by supposition I would say all those thousands of "statutes", "codes", and "ordinances". That would make you a criminal as you have violated more than a few just today.

 

And that's why the federal government costs so much. If it only did what it was actually constituted to do, it would not cost so much.

 

Good grief. Hyperbole much? If you want to consider yourself a "slave" then so be it. Some people consider it their patriotic duty to pay taxes.

No, it is not a "gun."

It seems more like you are the one living in a dream world.

How do you propose the government run with NO income? Please explain.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. I do think that some of the things the feds have taken control of should be left up to the individual states, but not all of them. I am trying to be realistic here.

 

Good grief, think much? Slave, perhaps one should invest in a dictionary, never mind that would require comprehension.

"SLAVE. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster; Anderson v. Salant, 38 R.I. 463, 96 A. 425, 428, L.R.A.1916D, 651.

One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civ.Code La. 1838, art. 35.

SLAVERY. The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another."

-- Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.

It is not I that thinks another has any control over any of my actions. A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery.

Conversely, an anarchist is the one who knows that there could never be legitimacy to "authority" or "government" because those terms are simply euphemisms for violence and slavery. Anarchy, from the Greek prefix an: "without; the absence of" and the Greek noun achon: "master; ruler". Anarchy does not mean "without rules". It literally means "without rulers; without masters". No Rulers. No Masters.

Government, from the Latin verb gubernare: "to control", and the Latin noun mens: "mind". The etymological origin of the English suffix -ment is often debated, yet it is overwhelmingly clear that those who created the English language deliberately chose mens, the Latin word for "mind" to mean "the state of" or "the condition of".

And I don't expect any sort of government to "run" in any manner whatsoever. I am not a slave and don't require a master. But that is a foreign concept to the unwashed masses and it would seem yourself.

No gun, and just how would one collect without them? Slaves cringe in fear and pay, not out of any sense of duty as you try to imply, but out of the fear of "not" following an order. Those not slaves stand tall and live by the sense of molon labe, come and get it, not cringing in fear.

So the "Dream World" would be the one that if one pretends something doesn't exist one can keep from having to face the reality. I don't pretend anything, bring it on and let's settle matters once and for all.

As to a federal administration running in the manner of their trust, it ran very well right up to 1913.

 

I guess it all comes down to where you place your trust. Do you trust the individual or the state. If you trust and rely on the state to provide solutions then you suffer under the solutions they choose to provide and you pay the taxes they choose to levy. Personally, I think that we would be better off if we left most things to individuals and kept the state out of our affairs as much as possible. The benefit of reducing the scope of the state's involvement in our lives would be increased liberty and lower taxes.

 

Nothing; only a Warfare-State requires direct taxes on incomes, a Welfare-State does not simply because it can bear True Witness to its Commerce Clause instead of claiming to have to look for "enemies of the State" as does a Warfare-State, regardless of any burden on Commerce.