We need to replace all taxes with a land value tax

I'm less worried about the taxes a business would have to pay to retain stock and more worried about the decrease of consumption as people hesitate to buy that extra roll of toilet paper or whatever where they otherwise would have.

 

I don't think it would really effect small purchases. I mean, what is 20% (just to round it off) of $1.50. It's only pennies. Luxury items like cars would be a lot more expensive though.

 

It adds up.

 

To balance the Federal budget the tax rate would need to be about 23%, more if interest rate rise. If the states followed suit the state sales tax rate would need to be 9-15% on top of that So, the actual tax rate for retail sales could be 38% or more.

Anyway, it is quite well accepted that an increase in prices will change consumer behaviour and a 20% price increase is not trivial. Changes in buying habits would considerably reduce sales in sectors like automotive, home construction and durable goods, which are a significant portion of overall economic activity. In the early 1980s the Federal government placed a 10% Luxury tax on the sales of goods over $100,000. The yachting business tanked and about 100,000 jobs were lost almost overnight and did not recover until over a decade after the tax was repealed despite a growing economy.

So, anyone who thinks a sudden 20% sales tax would have a trivial effect on the economy cannot know a thing about how economies actually function and appears to be entirely ignorant of history.

 

I actually know and understand quite a bit about the fair tax proposal. I am just trying to ascertain how much about it you actually know and understand, which is impossible with you telling me.

 

I know as much as I read in the link. Do you have some kind of problem?

 

Actually, there is another way to balance the Federal budget, as well as State and local government budgets. If budgeting was constrained to be no greater than the revenue collected, the budgets would be balanced. It's worked fine for me my entire life, currently retired, reaping the rewards of having budgeted responsibly based upon the means available to me without taking on any debts I could not be certain of being able to repay. Perhaps greater attention should be focused on identifying WHY government has increasingly become incapable of living within the means provided by the tax revenues it collects?

 

Most state constitutions require a balanced budget but there are many ways to legislate around that like underfunding future pension obligations, using capital improvement bond funds for non-capital expenditures and moving debt off the balance sheet.

There is actually nothing wrong with government borrowing for capital spending since infrastructure spending tends to spur economic growth that generates more revenue than the cost of the spending over the medium to long term. For example, over the last 60 years the interstate highway system has returned over $100 in increased government revenue for every dollar spent.

The big problem these days is the inability of people to understand that governments have obliged themselves to a lot of spending that is not negotiable, like pensions, debt repayment, and many social welfare programs. Many believe that if taxes are cut this spending can be reduced accordingly. They are wrong. What legislatures have historically done when revenues are inadequate to meet these obligations and also pay for more popular items is push these obligations into the future.

Many governments at all levels have been doing this for decades, piling up future pension and debt obligations to the point now where many states and municipalities have accumulated pension and debt obligations that are far beyond their ability to ever pay back without drastic increases in revenue.

These days many people want the government to repudiate their pension and debt obligations because they do not want to pay higher taxes. All I can say to them is that they have enjoyed the benefits of years and years of low taxes that were never enough to pay for everything and everyone knew it all along and now they think they can just pretend to be surprised that they have wracked up a huge bill. What did you think would happen?

Half the people in the US are acting like some jerk who went to a strip club, gave his American Express Black Card to the hostess to hold on to, never asked how much anything cost and was somehow surprised when the bill came to $30,000. Idiots.

 

Yes, but in an area which has urban blight and lots of empty or condemned buildings and vacant lots a land value tax would motivate the land owners to either sell their property to someone who will develop it or it will motivate the land owner to develop the property him/her self.

A good idea!

 

The solution to our economic problems requires we begin to live within our means, and until that occurs our problems will only grow.

The source of our problems began with passage of the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal reserve act.
We need to go back to being a single nation, comprised of States and people where the Federal government is constrained by not only the Constitution, but also the States and the people. Revenue for the operations of the Federal government should be collected by the States, requiring the Federal budget to be constrained by the States representatives in the Senate and the peoples representatives in the House, each of whom should be held accountable to their constituents and NOT their political party or any others such as those who funded their campaigns or lobbyists. All elections, except for the Presidential election should be kept local or State, with no outside involvement. In the meantime, the people have no say in their government other than which of the candidates provided by the major parties they will allow to apply their parties agenda over them, and the issues are too many for a rational choice to be made.

 

Excellent point.

All of these various tax schemes, whether its the "fair" tax or value added or land value tax or national sales tax, are all treating the symptoms and not the fundamental problem of excessive spending.

And in reality, all of these tax schemes are complicated and rely heavily on the government to operate, and would quickly degenerate into a mass of impossible to understand and corrupt laws and regulations just like the current system.

 

To hell with income tax. We just need to close the irs and institute an automated transactional tax. It could be less than one percent and still provide what the income tax provides. And then you get congress out of the blackmail business, that they use the tax codes for.

We now have the tech to do this, taxing all transactions. And of course the rich have more of these than the poor, so it would be as fair as you can get it. And the hedge fund boys get taxed in this way. No free lunches.

 

You posted a link but it had nothing to do with anything fair, just robbery with another slant. I stand under no one but I comprehend two things: 1) you have no clue what fair means and 2) you have no understanding of what the link you posted actually means so of course you would be clueless of what I mean which would lead you to just as falsely believe it is ranting as your idea of anything to do with a "fair" tax.

Perhaps you should learn to use some sort of dictionary and learn the meaning of words.

I would say that one should look at the definition and through the process of critical thinking formulate an answer but that obviously is asking way too much. Therefore, just accept the fact you're a slave instilled by the concept of statism. Oops, another of those hard to understand words, so here goes:

Statism

The brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people.

Absolutely clueless, well beyond the concept of taxes, seems to permeate the entire being, the blank stare would be the first honest statement you have made.

Taxation

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.

If it doesn't tax your comprehensive skills too much, I would suggest you try and reading that little old document called the constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. But then, based on previous posts, this may be hard to comprehend.

 

Of course there is a perfect system, it is in the constitution.

No, that is not a site listing the pros and cons, just pure bs. They use "Advantages", advantages to whom? An even smaller portion of the population than now?

And there are no "cons", it is listed as "Disadvantages", really? More like absolute penalties and even more lop-sided than this ill-conceived, crony-based system that is currently in place.

 

You really should follow the link, it is actually quite informative and does nothing to support the position of those in favor of the supposed "Fair Tax" system.

 

Oh? So how do you suggest a government run with no taxes?

- - - Updated - - -

It tells the pros and cons of the fair tax system. What's your suggestion for a "perfect system?" No taxes?

 

This is a very naive view of the overall concept. You propose that congress spends no more than they collect with no questions on whats and whys of what they are spending. Secondly, it is also naive from the concept of exactly how the current fiat currency system works; no debt, no money.

Perhaps, one should consider understanding just how we have got where we are. The problem lies not within the government, but to find the culprit, one just needs to look in a mirror.

The constitution instilled within government a very limited set of powers covering even more limited avenues of using those powers. There are but 4543 words in the original constitution. There are but 18 clauses of empowerment set out in section 8 of the first article and 8 clauses of restrictions as set out in section 9 of the first article. And these are all levied at the only branch that was meant to legislate.

But if one really wants to understand where everything really went afoul, start with Amendment 12. See anything evil there? Why not?

And Amendment 13, are you aware that it is the only amendment that was proposed with a pre-assigned article number as part of the Amendment? Ever wonder why? How about the involvement of Lincoln in New York, 1856?

Not to mention the usurpation of state authority as a check and balance by the 17th Amendment. And then the crimes of the century with the 16th Amendment and the not so-Federal Reserve.

 

Get a clue.

It does no such thing. Get a clue.

 

Perhaps you should put more effort into comprehending others posts and then try to respond based on what was actually stated.

No, I don't see anything evil there, so please elaborate and explain how it applies to this threads topic?

Please elaborate on this as well, remaining on topic of course.

On this we appear to agree, and this is the area where in my opinion our form government became inverted, top down rather than bottom up.

 

IOW, you don't know what you're talking about. Now, address the question. How do you propose the government run with NO tax income?

Good God, can you read? Yes . . . it does. My link is ABOUT the Fair Tax proposal.

From the link . . .

The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States. It would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 155) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.[1][2]

 

Oh, I comprehend completely. You somehow suppose that by balancing a budget that the tax issues would somehow miraculously disappear, therefore my statement of such a naive view, even more naive than the subject matter of some misnomer of fair taxation called "Fair Tax". You somehow supply a supposition that a balanced budget has something to do with taxation when there are so many other factors at play that makes that an impossibility. Additionally, you are expanding the topic to incorporate many other taxes than the replacement of income and other payroll taxes with a national sales tax misnamed "Fair Tax".

Don't see anything evil, why not? This has everything to do with the topic of the thread, it is the spearhead to the whole issue. But if you cannot see what this amendment accomplished, you would little understand the concept that leads to the topic of this thread. This was the whole base that led to 1913.

Elaborate, I gave you the clues, do some research. It starts with the War of 1812 which burned Washington and certain records (sound like 9/11?) and reaches orbital speed with Lincoln and his agreement in New York in 1856 that got him the financial backing to win in 1860. And Lincoln was all about taxes, slavery my butt, it was the taxes. Then the Civil War and Amendments 13 and 14 that so eloquently set the stage for 1913 and the whole purpose that led to this thread.

On which part do we agree, the 17th Amendment, the 16th or the Federal Reserve Act. What is inverted?

 

The problem is with comprehension, it was answered.

Not only read but comprehend, a skill that seems to be missing on your part, but then I also answered that previously.

 

Take a look at your responses to the posts of others, and compare what they had written to what you appear to think they wrote. In nearly every case I've looked at, you have altered their words to say something quite different.
1. I have not claimed that by balancing the budget that tax issues would miraculously disappear.
2. A balanced budget is simply a budget kept to within the means available for spending.
3. Taxation is the method by which government acquires the means of its existence.
4. I've not proposed any other taxes, but have proposed eliminating the Federal governments ability to tax individuals directly.
5. There is no such thing as a 'Fair' tax; maybe it should have been called the "Fairer Tax" instead. Taxes are necessary to fund a government, Federal, State, or local.

Not interested ingoing further astray.

Maybe I was wrong and we don't agree on anything at all. It appears your intent is simply to argue perpetually.
If you really are comprehending what others, myself included, are writing then the last six words of the sentence you are responding to contained the answer to your question.

 

I know, you seem to have a HUGE problem with comprehension. And THAT is probably the least of your problems from the sounds of it.

Ah, no. You don't seem to comprehend it all. Like I said, my link explained what a Fair Tax is, and the pros and cons of the Fair Tax system. Right? So, that would mean . . . you are wrong. I don't think you understand taxes, why they are important and how they work at all.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you still haven't answered the question . . . how do you propose the federal government run without income from taxation? Please be specific. Thank you.

 

I thought this thread was about the land value tax, its merits and demerits and alternatives. We seem to be getting a little off track here.