Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 129

Thread: The broad method of taxation is not the problem

  1. #1

    The broad method of taxation is not the problem

    Modern governments don't have revenue problems. They have spending problems. They spend too much money and offer way too little for the money they spend.

    It boils down to competition. Governments violently enforce monopolies that are inefficient & predatory towards the liberty of private citizens.

    All forms of taxation can be made just if you work on limiting the power and scope of government. Our current income tax system is fiercely corrupt, no sane person would argue with that. Current property tax systems are absurd because they tap the livelihood of private individuals for the main purpose of enriching useless government bureaucrats. Sales tax systems are similar and they have the added problem of suppressing economic activity.

    As much as it is depressing, these tax structures will remain as long as spending goes unchecked. And the most problematic form of spending is spending on government workers. Handing money out in the form of social security & medicare isn't a big problem. The problem of government arises when you empower government unions that become inefficient & hungry for tax dollars & predatory towards free individuals.

    A single government bureaucrat costs as much as 40 families on food stamps. I'm using $10k per month for the lackocrat and $250 per month for the family. Giving money to the family solves a problem. It feeds people. Giving money to the lackocrat creates a problem. He will look for ways to solidify his position & that invariably means attacking the private sector. Whether it's pushing drug laws, creating more forms & greater ways to invade privacy, demanding more money for government schools, picking fights with foreign countries, or whatever. They will create problems.
    Last edited by furface; 04-04-2012 at 07:19 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    The broad method of taxation is not the problem

    I do not see how the inflation tax can be justified. The inflation tax is straight-up theft. It is no different than the banker, each night, pilfering everybody's bank account. Your money is worth less today than yesterday because the bankers inflate the value away.

    The income tax discourages rising incomes and encourages free money welfare programs. Property tax discourages property improvement and encourages mediocracy. The capital gains tax discourages savings and investment and is simply a transfer of wealth. Sales tax... I can justify the sales tax as a way to fund government if necessities are not taxed.

    But the inflation tax? Justify that.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  4. #3
    But the inflation tax? Justify that.
    As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable. It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing. US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable.
    And that is the caveat. Wages and social security don't keep up with inflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing.
    True enough but it is still theft of the most sophisticated order. If it wasn't then they would let everyone have their own money printing machine.

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.
    Where did they get trillions to hold and why do they hold it rather than invest it?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    All forms of taxation can be made just if you work on limiting the power and scope of government.
    No form of taxation can be justified irrespective of the kind of government!

    Look, it's not so much about the power & scope, I'm not saying it's totally irrelevant but the REAL issue is of incentives.
    Those who believe in free market understand that private businesses have more incentives to provide a good service because if they do that then they make profits otherwise they make losses & in the long-run, go out of business. The same should be true for governance, if you want a good governance then it can only be gotten through aligning incentives in a way that ensures that rewards good people in the government while bad ones are eliminated through a market-process, just like inefficient businesses are eliminated elsewhere in the economy; governance is probably the most important aspect of the economy since the cost of bad governance is very big.
    So like Friedman (I think ) had said that central-banking is too important to be left to the government, I'll say governance is too important to be left to the government

    Now, I've always been a minarchist & I find that a lot of minarchists are simply unwilling to look beyond some kind of taxation (theft) to fund a minarchist government; & I'd really find it very hypocritical if I said, I'm for free market everywhere else except governance, I mean if it's good & we understand why a free market works elsewhere then why not with governance? There's often some cognitive dissonance there.

    Now, I understand that it can't be done overnight but then we can't eliminate Fed overnight either but that doesn't mean we don't discuss it & competing currencies, etc & the same holds true for discussing a governance that is NOT based on violence & theft.

    I'd proposed a basic idea about 3-tiered government, first tier being city/district-representatives elected by people & then they select 2nd (state) & 3rd (national) level administrations.
    If you want good governance then it HAS TO BE LOCAL, & the local representatives should've the most power while the state & national ones with least power in order to avoid centralization.
    People could just donate directly at their district elections & then they run the thing with the collected money, I mean it won't take that much money, in a free & prosperous market to just run the police & courts at the least. They'd pass on some of that to the state & national administrations.
    Further, lotteries can also be arranged to raise revenue; roads will be leased to private companies so that could potentially bring in some revenue & improve quality at the same time.
    State & National administrations would NOT be elected by the people but by the district-representatives. This is because if they're unelected then they won't command that much power nor will they be able to take over & bully like elected-representatives often do because they are seen to be having "people's mandate", they just should be seen as co-ordinators, more than anything else.
    Most power to the local-representatives because it's possible for someone at the city/district-level to be PERSONALLY involved with the people & as many here know Ron Paul has been, I'm sure many in his district completely disagree with him on some issues but they support him because he can reach out to them & make them understand his positions one-on-one but such personal-relationship with the constituents isn't possible with larger represenation-zone so that automatically eliminates the good people because then you need big money to advertise & everything & that breeds corporatism & inefficiencies, etc

    Anyways, this is just my preliminary thoughts on the issue of a "how to have a free market in governance", I'm sure others can come up with better ideas but I think people must learn to accept that if we believe in free market & incentives then we must understand that if we want good governance then we must first address the incentives; because people who have a "right to steal" never have & never will provide good governance & in the long-run, any such system will devolve into the current monster we're seeing!
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  7. #6
    Travlyr, I think you make some good points. I don't like to engage in sort of "list wars" going back and forth point by point. All I will say is that I've come to the conclusion that it's wrong to be monolithic in approaching monetary and economic policy. For instance it's wrong to say inflation is always wrong. When inflation erodes buying power for the middle class it's wrong. When it erodes financial power of billionaires who are hoarding money, it's good.

    Paul Or Nothing II, I'm curious about your seeming thesis that the free market will automatically create a just economic system. Is this what you're saying? That the result will be more just for all people than what we have now? I'm not disagreeing with the idea. I'm wondering whether or not economic justice is an issue for you.

    The problem with saying ALL taxation is theft is that it equates the rights of a middle class person trying to support his family and not be threatened by government intrusion with those of the extremely wealthy who can much better afford to deal with taxation and government tax filing requirements. Intruding on a middle class person can be lethal to that person while telling Warren Buffet he has to pay some taxes is no big deal. He can afford it both financially and logistically.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    As long as wages & social security keep up with inflation, it's irrelevant, and in a lot of senses desirable. It doesn't require invasive form filing and policing. US corporations now hold trillions of dollars in stagnant cash. That's a big problem for society. There should be a penalty for that, and it's called inflation.
    Whoa?! Did you really mean that?

    Remember that the inflation tax is not just a tax on the money you're going to earn, it's a tax on all the money you have EVER earned! It's pure theft. Wages and social security can never make up for that theft! It is never desirable to steal people's wealth!
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  9. #8
    it's a tax on all the money you have EVER earned!
    No it's not. It's a tax on your current monetary holdings and your future earnings to the extent that they don't appreciate along with inflation. If you own lots of real estate for instance that's appreciating because of inflation, it's doing you some good.

    It's also a very crude term because prices never go up in unison, and the people who are confronted with the increases are always very distinct groups. The claim is that we currently have low inflation, but medical expenses for those who actually pay them are going up 20% a year. Government bureaucrats and the elderly aren't confronted with those expenses, so they're completely oblivious to them.
    Last edited by furface; 04-04-2012 at 10:48 AM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    No it's not. It's a tax on your current monetary holdings. If you own lots of real estate for instance that's appreciating because of inflation, it's doing you some good. It's also a very crude term because prices never go up in unison, and the people who are confronted with the increases are always very distinct groups. The claim is that we currently have low inflation, but medical expenses for those who actually pay them are going up 20% a year. Government bureaucrats and the elderly aren't confronted with those expenses, so they're completely oblivious to them.
    Ok... real estate is one example. Gold is another. But the value of these is not really going up! Don't be fooled.

    Besides, most of your wealth depreciates over time. The only reason gold and real estate appreciate is because of inflation! So it's not really doing you any good... You're not really getting more! It's just doing you good compared to the other items you have or will buy. So if you have lots of holdings, you're not getting hit as hard as those with fewer holdings. Without this inflation tax, the price of the other goods would remain relatively constant as would your other holdings.

    And claims of low inflation are bogus. And medical expenses are infalting even faster because the government is directly inflating that industry - above and beyond what they're doing to the dollar.
    Last edited by CaptUSA; 04-04-2012 at 10:57 AM.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Travlyr, I think you make some good points. I don't like to engage in sort of "list wars" going back and forth point by point. All I will say is that I've come to the conclusion that it's wrong to be monolithic in approaching monetary and economic policy. For instance it's wrong to say inflation is always wrong. When inflation erodes buying power for the middle class it's wrong. When it erodes financial power of billionaires who are hoarding money, it's good.
    Apparently, you don't believe all theft if wrong, you just believe that when stealing SEEMS to help you then it's ok to steal

    If you think being rich is bad then I wonder what kind of centrally-planned misery you have envisioned for the mankind!

    Where did you come from, pal? OWS???

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Paul Or Nothing II, I'm curious about your seeming thesis that the free market will automatically create a just economic system. Is this what you're saying? That the result will be more just for all people than what we have now? I'm not disagreeing with the idea. I'm wondering whether or not economic justice is an issue for you.
    I'm not saying free market will create a "just economic system" (whatever that is), I just believe that free market will lead to a better system than one where a gang of thieves steal & suppress other people at the behest of the majority of deluded socialists

    And yes, economic justice (as I see it) matters to me that's why I'm against theft at every instance, not just when it suits me!

    By the way, I'm curious to know where do you find these honest, angelic politicians & bureaucrats that will run the government in a way that will tax in a way that benefits middleclass at the expense of the rich? Not saying I'd support such a government but a mere glance at past & present clearly illustrates that governments with coercive powers have always sided with the rich, that's just how it is & that's why no government should have the power to coerce anyone, otherwise it's going to be used by the rich to coerce the rest anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    The problem with saying ALL taxation is theft is that it equates the rights of a middle class person trying to support his family and not be threatened by government intrusion with those of the extremely wealthy who can much better afford to deal with taxation and government tax filing requirements. Intruding on a middle class person can be lethal to that person while telling Warren Buffet he has to pay some taxes is no big deal. He can afford it both financially and logistically.
    There's no "problem" in saying all taxation is theft because it IS, when people FORCE others to pay up with the threat of violence it's theft, burglary, robbery or whatever you want to call it! Just because you THINK it will benefit you, doesn't make it any different! Many thieves justify their actiions too but that doesn't change the bottomline!

    The real question is if someone has become a billionaire or whatever WITHOUT using violence, theft or coercion then what right do you or anyone else have to rob them???

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    It is never desirable to steal people's wealth!
    ^^^
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  13. #11
    Look guys, I have a problem with all or nothing thinking. It seems to permeate on these boards. You know, you can cure all cancer with hemp oil. You can fix everything by just taxing land or by just eliminating all taxes. Everything can be traced to the Illuminati & the Rothschilds.

    It's never that simple. Things are much more complex. Cancer can only be cured by a long list of yet undiscovered drugs & therapies and economics is a complex science that seems not to work with overly simplistic ideas.

  14. #12
    Counterfeiting (inflation) is theft straight-up. Ben Bernanke is allowed by unconstitutional rule to go to his basement and print whatever money he needs to meet the demands of his friends. If I go to my basement and print whatever money me and my friends want, then I go to jail. Ben Bernanke and his friends (FBI, CIA, Secret Service) make sure of that because if they let just anyone print whatever money they need, then their money becomes worthless sooner than it will otherwise. They have to aggress against competition or quit stealing. Those are their only choices. They are not going to quit stealing anytime soon unless we end the Fed for them.

    The larger point is that printing money is an oxymoron without thugs to back them up. If printing money was real then we could print cars, airplanes, and food too because that is what we spend money on. What happens when Ben Bernanke prints money is that he transfers wealth from production (steals) to pay for their pet projects ($108,000,000.00 drones for example). It would be wise to stop them tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then ASAP.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Look guys, I have a problem with all or nothing thinking... You can fix everything by just taxing land
    No one said you could fix everything by just taxing land. But you can't fix the basic problems in government or the economy without taxing land, because land's value is the measure of the tax-funded welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners. Sure, you could fix some things without taxing land: you could end the War on Drugs, for instance, or switch to a debt-free greenback monetary system. But Portugal shows that ending the War on Drugs doesn't fix much else, and although debt-free money would mean much less debt, it would also make the real estate market very illiquid.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Look guys, I have a problem with all or nothing thinking. It seems to permeate on these boards. You know, you can cure all cancer with hemp oil. You can fix everything by just taxing land or by just eliminating all taxes. Everything can be traced to the Illuminati & the Rothschilds.

    It's never that simple. Things are much more complex. Cancer can only be cured by a long list of yet undiscovered drugs & therapies and economics is a complex science that seems not to work with overly simplistic ideas.
    who was talking about all or nothing? I mean, Travlyr talked about capital gains, income, sales, and property taxes... How you could make an argument for those. Still, most of us would have problems with those, too.

    But the inflation tax is just plain theft. I mean, at least with the others, you can make adjustments if they adjust the tax. Don't like sales taxes? Don't buy the things that are being taxed. Don't like income taxes? Reduce your reportable income. They raise the capital gains tax? You can adjust your holdings. But the inflation tax reduces the value of money you already have. That's BS. And it hits the lower and middle incomes the hardest.

    If I have $1000 in my bank account, and now it only buys $950 worth of goods, someone stole that $50! (remember, it had already been taxed when I earned it.) I'm not into all or nothing thinking, but I have a hard time finding a way to justify this. Either this is right or wrong. I don't know how anyone can think there's some gray area here.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Look guys, I have a problem with all or nothing thinking. It seems to permeate on these boards. You know, you can cure all cancer with hemp oil. You can fix everything by just taxing land or by just eliminating all taxes. Everything can be traced to the Illuminati & the Rothschilds.

    It's never that simple. Things are much more complex. Cancer can only be cured by a long list of yet undiscovered drugs & therapies and economics is a complex science that seems not to work with overly simplistic ideas.
    Hello and welcome to the United States. When did you immigrate?

    It's so nice to meet people from other countries, with the crazy ideas about logic, reason, and debate in politics. Kind of quaint, really...

  18. #16
    Hello and welcome to the United States. When did you immigrate?

    It's so nice to meet people from other countries, with the crazy ideas about logic, reason, and debate in politics. Kind of quaint, really...
    That's a new one or maybe not so new. Xenophobia is nothing new. Are you really trying to insult me by erroneously claiming I'm from another country?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    That's a new one or maybe not so new. Xenophobia is nothing new. Are you really trying to insult me by erroneously claiming I'm from another country?

  21. #18
    But you can't fix the basic problems in government or the economy without taxing land
    I would agree with you that in some cases property tax is legitimate. It's just not legitimate for ordinary home owners & small businesses. People who rent out to other people? Yes, it's legitimate. Huge landowners? Yes.

    My main concern with taxing individual homeowners is that government attempts to take money from people in the form of property taxes and give them back things they don't want. It's better to just let people keep the money instead of giving them bogus services.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    who was talking about all or nothing? I mean, Travlyr talked about capital gains, income, sales, and property taxes... How you could make an argument for those. Still, most of us would have problems with those, too.

    But the inflation tax is just plain theft. I mean, at least with the others, you can make adjustments if they adjust the tax. Don't like sales taxes? Don't buy the things that are being taxed. Don't like income taxes? Reduce your reportable income. They raise the capital gains tax? You can adjust your holdings. But the inflation tax reduces the value of money you already have. That's BS. And it hits the lower and middle incomes the hardest.

    If I have $1000 in my bank account, and now it only buys $950 worth of goods, someone stole that $50! (remember, it had already been taxed when I earned it.) I'm not into all or nothing thinking, but I have a hard time finding a way to justify this. Either this is right or wrong. I don't know how anyone can think there's some gray area here.
    Just a question. Who got that $50? Did the government get the $50? Did the Federal Reserve get the $50? Or was a company able to charge $50 more for their products and get it? If somebody was willing to pay that $50 more to buy stuff from them, did the company "steal" it?

    (I guess this is arguing not against the potentialy harmful effect of price inflation and more against trying to call it "theft").
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-04-2012 at 02:17 PM.

  23. #20
    So this is good judging from the replies. Everybody agrees that statements like "all tax is theft" and "inflation is the worst form of tax theft" are overly simplistic.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    So this is good judging from the replies. Everybody agrees that statements like "all tax is theft" and "inflation is the worst form of tax theft" are overly simplistic.
    No, I don't agree. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my responses. Counterfeiting is simply theft. Just like if some guy stole into your bank account each night and took some of your money. Simply theft.

  25. #22
    Counterfeiting is simply theft.
    Why do you think the value of your monetary assets should be protected more than the value of other assets like real estate or stocks?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Why do you think the value of your monetary assets should be protected more than the value of other assets like real estate or stocks?
    I guess the basic question is should the government or the Federal Reserve control prices- which is what you would be doing if you try to achieve zero inflation. To be able to maintain that we will also have to control wages too since rising wages are a major factor in raising prices- labor is still the biggest cost of prodicing anything.

    How much control or involvement should they have? Should they have done something to stop people from paying more for a house or an ounce fo gold if they are willing and able to do so? If the price of a house gets too high for anybody to afford- it will not sell. If more people want it, they will bid up the price for it.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Why do you think the value of your monetary assets should be protected more than the value of other assets like real estate or stocks?
    Because legal tender laws force me into the theft and it is immoral. It is the source of most violence.

    If I buy 100 acres of land in 1970 and I hold on to it until 2012, then I still have 100 acres of land. If I buy stock in a company that operates poorly, and I lose money, then I should have kept track of what they were doing and sold out before I lost ... it is a gamble. If I own a gold Eagle and keep it for 10 years, then I still have a gold Eagle.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    If I buy 100 acres of land in 1970 and I hold on to it until 2012, then I still have 100 acres of land. If I buy stock in a company that operates poorly, and I lose money, then I should have kept track of what they were doing and sold out before I lost ... it is a gamble. If I own a gold Eagle and keep it for 10 years, then I still have a gold Eagle.
    And if you keep $100 in the bank for 10 years, you will still have $100. The monetary contract does not guarantee the value of your $100.

  30. #26
    I guess the basic question is should the government or the Federal Reserve control prices- which is what you would be doing if you try to achieve zero inflation. To be able to maintain that we will also have to control wages too since rising wages are a major factor in raising prices- labor is still the biggest cost of prodicing anything.
    These are questions of monetary policy and there is fierce debate about the issue from many sides. Do I agree that the Fed should just print money and hand it out to the government like it's doing now? No. However, if the fed were to print money and loan it at zero or reduced interest rates to buy homes, I'd probably agree. Keep it out of the hands of government and give it to the people. There are other things that can be done to keep inflation at a minimum.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    And if you keep $100 in the bank for 10 years, you will still have $100. The monetary contract does not guarantee the value of your $100.
    Right. And I am forced by law into the contract. It is theft.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Modern governments don't have revenue problems. They have spending problems. They spend too much money and offer way too little for the money they spend.
    The market value of the services and infrastructure government provides is exactly equal to how much people are willing to pay for land. The fact that they are required to pay that value to private landowners for doing nothing instead of repaying the government for the benefits it provides does not change the value of what land users are paying for.
    Governments violently enforce monopolies that are inefficient & predatory towards the liberty of private citizens.
    The first and worst of those violently enforced monopolies being private title to land.
    All forms of taxation can be made just if you work on limiting the power and scope of government.
    You know that is false and absurd. Any form of taxation that, like land value taxation, recovers publicly created value for public purposes and benefit is inherently just. All forms of taxation that confiscate privately created value and use it to provide welfare subsidy giveaways of publicly created value to privileged private interests (almost always landowners) are inherently unjust, and can never be made just.
    Our current income tax system is fiercely corrupt, no sane person would argue with that.
    It is corrupt because taxing earned income is inherently unjust.
    Current property tax systems are absurd because they tap the livelihood of private individuals
    No, such claims are false, ridiculous, and dishonest. Tapping "the livelihood of private individuals" for public purposes and benefit is indisputably just when, as in the case of the land value portion of property taxes, the "livelihood" that is being "tapped" consists of publicly created value that those private individuals are pocketing in return for nothing.
    for the main purpose of enriching useless government bureaucrats.
    The value of land is the exact measure of how useful those government "bureaucrats" are, and it is inbdisputably more just to pay firemen, police officers, teachers, water and sewer workers, road construction workers, etc., etc. a living wage for their labor than to give the value they create away to private landowners in return for nothing.
    Sales tax systems are similar and they have the added problem of suppressing economic activity.
    Tax income, and people will earn less income. Tax sales, and people will buy fewer goods. But tax land, and it is all still there, ready to use. In fact, it is MORE ready to use, because people will not be able to afford to hoard it for speculation.
    And the most problematic form of spending is spending on government workers.
    No. At least government workers have to do something in return for the money. The most problematic form of spending is subsidies to the privileged, who don't have to contribute anything in return.
    Handing money out in the form of social security & medicare isn't a big problem.
    OTC, it is a huge problem, because virtually the entire benefit of Medicare and SS goes to landowners as a welfare subsidy giveaway: you can't access Medicare without paying a landowner full market value for it, and most people can't use their SS checks unless they pay a landowner for access to the stores and services where they want to spend the money.
    The problem of government arises when you empower government unions that become inefficient & hungry for tax dollars & predatory towards free individuals.
    I agree government employee unions are even more abusive than private unions, as they have a double layer of monopoly.
    A single government bureaucrat costs as much as 40 families on food stamps. I'm using $10k per month for the lackocrat and $250 per month for the family. Giving money to the family solves a problem. It feeds people. Giving money to the lackocrat creates a problem. He will look for ways to solidify his position & that invariably means attacking the private sector. Whether it's pushing drug laws, creating more forms & greater ways to invade privacy, demanding more money for government schools, picking fights with foreign countries, or whatever. They will create problems.
    Land value measures the exact extent to which those "bureaucrats" are solving problems.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    I would agree with you that in some cases property tax is legitimate. It's just not legitimate for ordinary home owners & small businesses.
    I agree that every resident citizen should have an equal exemption from the land tax for enough good land to live on, much as everyone is currently exempt from taxation on enough income to live on. Most homeowners and small businesses would pay much less tax under land value taxation than they do now, as well as much less (or no) mortgage interest.

    If you are worried about the excessive cost of government, surely the first step has to be to stop paying for it twice: once in taxes to government to fund services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to private landowners for access to the same services and infrastructure your taxes just paid for.
    My main concern with taxing individual homeowners is that government attempts to take money from people in the form of property taxes and give them back things they don't want. It's better to just let people keep the money instead of giving them bogus services.
    The rental value of land is the exact measure of how much people do want, and are willing to pay for, those services.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Right. And I am forced by law into the contract. It is theft.
    You are forced to keep your money in a bank account paying zero percent? So far I am seeing different returns on investment. What you use for money does not guarantee that the prices of anything will stay the same forever. Money is meant to be a convient form of exchange for things of value- not a store of value in itself.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-04-2012 at 03:58 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The stop is not the problem; the method of the stop is the problem.
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2015, 11:28 AM
  2. DHS experts now warn of a broad Syria Cyber War
    By presence in forum Syria Intervention
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2013, 08:36 AM
  3. W.H. considers broad gun control
    By Pauls' Revere in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-06-2013, 05:07 PM
  4. What is the ideal method of Taxation for libertarians?
    By ClayTrainor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 02:14 PM
  5. Broad Index commodities funds?
    By acroso in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •