Thread: The rich SHOULD pay a higher tax rate!!

Originally Posted by Gaar

Without the Landlord you would have no place to rent.

If they died, and if no new landlord took their place, the apartment complex would still exist. And it would still remain functional. We don't need the "brilliance" of some landlord to maintain the place.

No where in the Constitution does it grant the Government the Right to oversee the amount of rent people pay.

The constitution also demands income taxation, which I disagree with.

But *I* do not think landlords necessarily have any right to charge whatever they want, because all the landlords in a city could agree with each other to basically gouge everyone and make it impossible for anyone with an income below 50,000 USD a year to live anywhere, and then the prices for houses would skyrocket.

If you think geoism is incompatible with capitalism, then you are a fool.

You rightists think that the nobles should have sole authority over us peasants, but I disagree.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

If they died, and if no new landlord took their place, the apartment complex would still exist. And it would still remain functional. We don't need the "brilliance" of some landlord to maintain the place.

If no Heir were present, and no Will gave ownership to another individual,, the State would take over ownership and sell it to the highest bidder.

You could then buy it, if you like, and take over the Taxes that are owed as well as the payment required by buying said property.

Or do you think they should just give you ownership simply because you live there?

Originally Posted by DeathStar

But *I* do not think landlords necessarily have any right to charge whatever they want, because all the landlords in a city could agree with each other to basically gouge everyone and make it impossible for anyone with an income below 50,000 USD a year to live anywhere, and then the prices for houses would skyrocket.

The price you are charged is covered by competition. If you think they are charging to much, find a cheaper place. You don't get to tell them what you will pay. They are only governed by the Market place. If they are charging too much, no one will rent it and they lose out on any type of payment. It is the Market that governs such things, whether you understand that or not.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

You rightists think that the nobles should have sole authority over us peasants, but I disagree.

I think the "Market" has the "authority" you speak of...

Not sure what you don't understand about that?

Try reading 'Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith. Perhaps that will broaden your understanding of Capitalism.

Originally Posted by Gaar

If no Heir were present, and no Will gave ownership to another individual,, the State would take over ownership and sell it to the highest bidder.

You could then buy it, if you like, and take over the Taxes that are owed as well as the payment required by buying said property.

Or do you think they should just give you ownership simply because you live there?

The point is that landlords are unproductive middlemen, period. Do you not understand that?

The price you are charged is covered by competition. If you think they are charging to much, find a cheaper place. You don't get to tell them what you will pay. They are only governed by the Market place. If they are charging too much, no one will rent it and they lose out on any type of payment. It is the Market that governs such things, whether you understand that or not.

I think *most* industries should work like that, but not Big Land Rent. Big Land Rent should be regulated in some way because land is a fundamental resource.

Consider this. You won't directly answer this hypothetical, but what if a private company sucked up 100% or 90% or otherwise a huge quantity of Earth's atmospheric oxygen gas, to where you couldn't breathe, and then charged you 1,000 USD per day just so you could breathe? What would you think of that?

Originally Posted by Gaar

I think the "Market" has the "authority" you speak of...

Not sure what you don't understand about that?

Try reading 'Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith. Perhaps that will broaden your understanding of Capitalism.

My problem isn't with "capitalism", it's with big land rent. You'll just insult me like a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag by saying that I'm some kind of Marxist just because I don't agree with Big Land Rent, but the truth is that I think MOST industries, other than maybe police and roads, should be private/free market/capitalist.

One could say that I'm more "capitalist" than you, because you've said that you think we should tax "luxury items", and I don't think we should.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

My problem isn't with "capitalism", it's with big land rent. You'll just insult me like a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag by saying that I'm some kind of Marxist just because I don't agree with Big Land Rent, but the truth is that I think MOST industries, other than maybe police and roads, should be private/free market/capitalist.

One could say that I'm more "capitalist" than you, because you've said that you think we should tax "luxury items", and I don't think we should.

So you do or don't understand how "Capitalism" affects the rent you pay?

And how does wanting Taxes to be paid have anything to do with whether you understand Capitalism or not?

I didn't insult you. I simply pointed out that your rent is governed by the Capitalistic principle of Market value. When you say it should be governed by an act of Law, you are in fact citing principles more closely associated with Socialism and or Marxism.

Don't like to be associated with them? Then quite trying to push their principles on our Society.

It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Gaar

So you do or don't understand how "Capitalism" affects the rent you pay?

Yes, but I don't agree with unregulated capitalism as applied to that specific aspect of the economy.

And how does wanting Taxes to be paid have anything to do with whether you understand Capitalism or not?

Taxation itself is not capitalist. Not necessarily Marxist, but not capitalist. However, this just proves that not even you are a "pure capitalist". The only way to be a pure capitalist is to be an anarcho-capitalist.

I didn't insult you. I simply pointed out that your rent is governed by the Capitalistic principle of Market value. When you say it should be governed by an act of Law, you are in fact citing principles more closely associated with Socialism and or Marxism.

Do you think that the government intervening with (taxing) private exchanges of "luxury items", which you DID EXPLICITLY suggest, is purely capitalistic?

No, it is not. Not even you believe in pure capitalism. The Constitution doesn't either, since it demands a government and income taxation.

And you will ignore this hypothetical because you have no answer, but what if a private company sucked up enough atmospheric oxygen that you couldn't breathe, and then charged you whatever it wanted just so you could breathe? What would you think of that? Answer it, please.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

The point is that landlords are unproductive middlemen, period. Do you not understand that?

No, without them you would have no place to LIVE!

Do YOU understand that?

Originally Posted by DeathStar

I think *most* industries should work like that, but not Big Land Rent. Big Land Rent should be regulated in some way because land is a fundamental resource.

Again... You don't like to pay rent buy your own land and build your own home and pay the taxes yourself. You will then also be solely responsible for any upkeep and the like. Then you will understand why Landlords charge rent!

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Consider this. You won't directly answer this hypothetical, but what if a private company sucked up 100% or 90% or otherwise a huge quantity of Earth's atmospheric oxygen gas, to where you couldn't breathe, and then charged you 1,000 USD per day just so you could breathe? What would you think of that?

I think I would go buy some land with trees and bushes, cover it with a dome, and supply MYSELF with the oxygen I needed.

Originally Posted by Gaar

I think I would go buy some land with trees and bushes, cover it with a dome, and supply MYSELF with the oxygen I needed.

The rest of your post is every bit as moronic as this, but I'll respond to it.

You really think that a private company should have the right to, hypothetically, suck up Earth's oxygen to the extent where you have to pay just to breathe? If so, you are both evil and an idiot.

Please answer.