Wealthy will ALWAYS have an advantage

No, that's just you makin' stupid $#!+ up again. Anyone who uses infrastructure has to pay greedy, parasitic landowners full market value for it. In most cases, they have already paid for the infrastructure in taxes. It is the landowners who are always the parasites, because they do not pay for the infrastructure that they charge others for, any more than a thug who takes your wallet and gives you back $10 for cab fare has paid for your ride. Everything they pay in property taxes, they have taken from society in the first place, because the value of land is identical to the minimum value of what the landowner expects to take from society and NOT REPAY in taxes. It is the value of the landowner's privilege of being a greedy, despicable parasite, and taking wealth from the productive while not contributing anything in return:

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price." — Andrew Carnegie

See? Andrew Carnegie, who certainly knew far better than you and was also incomparably more honest than you, told the truth.

 

By going where government and the community haven't given greedy, idle, parasitic landowners so much services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities to charge people for.

The jobs aren't in low cost areas, silly. In places where the community has made lots of good job opportunities available, greedy, idle, parasitic landowners know they can charge the productive full market value for access to all the job opportunities government and the community provide.

I.e., productive working people should have to pay greedy, idle, parasitic landowners like you for having "invested" in a privilege of charging them full market value for what government, the community and nature provide. The greedy, idle, parasitic landowner doesn't contribute anything by "investing" in his license to steal from producers. But you claim he "earns" what he extorts from others by threatening to forcibly deprive them of access to the opportunities he is not providing.

What a load of evil, rotten, vicious, despicable swill.

 

How come land held out of use has so much value and appreciates so nicely over time? Certainly, it seems rather obvious that others give the landowner far more than he gives back.

They pay more for it than the landowner, but they especially CONTRIBUTE more towards it, since all the landowner pays in taxes is but a small portion of what he got for doing nothing, since he hasn't produced or provided anything.

He's the primary horseman of the apocalypse.

 

1. I know that
2. Of course it does
3. How are you regulating it exactly? By bailing them out every time they (*)(*)(*)(*) up? How 'bout we let them (*)(*)(*)(*) up, not get bailed out, and lose all their money?
4. Nope, but we can mitigate the effect.

 

"...super sized tax cuts the rest of us do not get on top of it"

Taxcutter says:
In the Bush tax cuts everyone got the same percentage.

Your envy is showing.

 

That article doesn't support your idea that shipping low skill jobs out of this country has benefited our economy.

 

It will harm the economy more to let the banks go belly up. The regulations that were once in place prevented banks from investing in risky ventures. If the banking system fails in this country, that would set of another Depression and cost the tax payers much more than bailing them out. That's why I like Obama making them pay back the bail outs instead of just handing them money like Bush did.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) em. Have the Fed give the depositors their money and let the bank itself fail. That's how you weed out the bad apples.

 

You are really funny as heck with your strange ideas about LVT

- - - Updated - - -

You comments are just as hilarious, and wrong, as the other LVT special pleader.

 

I guess you didn't read this part of it, "More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

 

That's understood.

Still, I think the people should benefit from the massive wealth the banks amass in good times (at least to a far more equitable degree).

 

LOL, I see you follow the obama playbook about covering up your "mis-statements".

 

Interesting article:

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike

WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.

$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:




........................Capital Gains.................Dividends.....................Other*

2012.................15%................................15%..............................35%

2013+................23.8%.............................43.4%............................43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000................................................All Remaining Wages
($250,000 Married).........................................Employer/Employee
Employer/Employee

Current Law
1.45%/1.45%.........................................................1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed...............................................2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%...........................................................1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed.................................................2.9% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):
Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following


.......................................1 Adult..........................2 Adults..................................3+ Adults
2014...............................1% AGI/$95....................1% AGI/$190........................1% AGI/$285
2015...............................2% AGI/$325...................2% AGI/$650........................2% AGI/$975
2016 +.............................5% AGI/$695..................2.5% AGI/$1390....................2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337


Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 201: Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap &#8211; aka &#8220;Special Needs Kids Tax&#8221; (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

$4.5 Billion: Codification of the &#8220;economic substance doctrine&#8221; (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks &#8220;substance&#8221; and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

 

None of which you have ever even come close to refuting....

Usual lack of content from you noted. Your posts on this subject have proved, with near-mathematical rigor, that it is apologists for landowner privilege who are always engaged in special pleading, not pro-LVT champions of liberty, justice and truth.

 

It wasn't a misstatement. It was correct use of a popular collocation. You just had to pretend it meant something it obviously didn't. That is a dishonest fallacy called "upward redefinition," an attempt to deceive readers into thinking the other side has made an absurd overstatement when they in fact have not.

 

Fact.

No, he only repays a small fraction of what he is taking from the community, just like the slave owner who pretends to be providing his slaves with food, clothing and shelter, but is actually taking the fruits of their labor. The landowner qua landowner is always by definition a pure, greedy, thieving, parasitic taker, as already proved. He is the distilled essence of pure, naked evil. His only function is to rob, enslave, starve and murder his fellow human beings.

No, that's false, as you know. Infrastructure is almost all paid for by consumers and the productive through taxes on their incomes, consumption, etc., not by property taxes. Even if the landowner nominally pays some modest amount of property tax, it is still only a small fraction of what he takes from the community by depriving everyone else of the land. And if he is NOT depriving everyone else of the land, but instead renting it out to a productive user, then he still hasn't paid any tax, because the money comes from the tenant, not from any rightful earnings the landowner might have.

But he doesn't. In his capacity as landowner he only takes from the land user. He doesn't use the land.

That must be why landowner-infested countries like Brazil, Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala and Bangladesh are so prosperous, and Hong Kong, where no one owns land, is so poor....

As already proved, he doesn't pay it, any more than a slave owner pays for his slaves' food, clothing and shelter.

Except that he has actually done nothing to contribute to that value, as already proved. All he has done is extort wealth from the productive.

Oh, but you already know that's false. They have to pay landowners full market value for it. First they pay for it through taxes on their income and consumption, then they have to pay for it again in land rent, so that landowners can pocket that payment in return for zero (0) contribution.

There are a number of ways to understand the similarity of landowning to slave owning:

Slave owning forcibly removes people's rights one person at a time, while landowning forcibly removes them one right at a time.

The slave owner removes all of one person's rights, while the landowner removes one of all people's rights.

Etc.

No, the landowner is the parasite who infects and weakens any healthy economy as soon as it shows any sign of prosperity -- and often when it doesn't.

 

It's imperative you watch the Documentary "PARK AVENUE" on Netflix.

 

Why? How's it relate?

 

Nothing you have said changes the fact that landowners are not the parasite that weakens a healthy economy. All your rhetoric has done is prove you are incapable of adequate reason by touting a garbage tax system. The Parasites are those who do not pay property taxes like landowners do, and get a free ride on infrastructure, or the free public education.

You are about 200 years behind the times. Your comparison of land owners to slave owners further proves your incompetence in taxation discussions. Paying landowners full market value to rent their property has been proved to be a huge prosperity machine for our country. All of that rental money goes back into the economy in addition to the property taxes the landowner pays allowing the greedy parasites to continue to use the infrastructure free of charge since almost all "government" paid infrastructure comes from taxes paid by landowners and most public education funds also come from landowner taxes. (Only excluding the small % of education coming from the Fed Govt) You "one size fits all" tax system actually a "one size fits no one." In addition you have yet to tell why you have in the past endorsed the fact that a person could receive millions in compensation from US investments without owning land, thus does not pay federal income tax.

The landowner takes nothing from the community, he gives to the community in taxes, the community uses those taxes to create infrastructure, the infrastructure makes the land''s value greater and his taxes go up commensurate to the value of the infrastructure that THE LANDOWNER BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH HIS TAX $$$S.

BTW, your Hong Kong comment is completely ridiculous as their free hold type of lease which can be sold, or inherited or passed on IAW the lease holders whim in much the same way fee simple works in the US.

 

OTC, the indisputable facts of objective physical reality that I identified prove that is NOT a fact, and that the landowner qua landowner is by definition always a pure parasite, always weakens any economy, always abrogates others' rights, is always a greedy thief, and can only rationalize his greed and thieving by lying.

No, I have identified the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications. You continue to offer nothing but your mantra-like chants of denial.

No. Landowners don't pay property taxes, they only repay a small part of what they steal from the community by depriving everyone else of the land. As already proved, your claim is logically equivalent to the claim that slave owners are not parasites because they provide their slaves with food, clothing and shelter. It is in fact the slaves' own labor that provides them with food, clothing and shelter, just as it is the community of those who are deprived of the land (most obviously tenants) that pays the landowners' property taxes for him.

No, I have already proved to you that everyone else must pay landowners full market value for access to all the infrastructure, public education, health care, and all other desirable services and infrastructure producers and consumers -- but not landowners -- pay for through their taxes. As you know.

Contentless tripe.

You continue to offer no facts, no logic, no economics, no arguments, nothing but your mantra-like chants of denial.

No, that has never happened. Prosperity has in fact been greatest where landowners have been required to repay the most publicly created land value to the community.

You again prove your incompetence in economics. The landowner's rent seeking racket PREVENTS all of that money from going back into the economy. That is precisely the problem with rent seeking: it absorbs the rent in unproductive efforts to get something for nothing. The rent seeker will do anything and everything to get something for nothing.

I already proved to you that the landowner doesn't pay any property taxes, any more than slave owners pay for their slaves' food, clothing and shelter.

You know I have proved that claim is false. They must pay landowners full market value for access to the infrastructure THEIR OWN TAXES already paid for.

No, that is just another bald fabrication on your part. Even in countries with the highest fraction of government spending accounted for by property taxes (which I have proved to you landowners don't pay in any case), only about 10% of total government spending comes from property taxes. Most comes from taxes on production and consumption.

No, that is merely another bald fabrication on your part:

http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance

http://www.academia.edu/912843/Property_Taxes_and_Public_Education_Funding_Inequality_in_the_System

As these documents prove, the majority of US public education funding is federal and state, and based on income and sales taxes, not property taxes. Even the minority that comes from local sources is not all from property taxes: many local jurisdictions use local sales, income and other taxes to pay for schools.

And in any case, I've already proved to you that parents must already pay landowners full market value for access to the public schools their income and sales taxes already paid for, and those landowners do not actually pay anything in taxes, but only pay back a small portion of what they steal, just like slave owners claiming to pay for their slaves' food, clothing and shelter. The landowner is the pure, distilled essence of greed, thieving and parasitism.

Everything you say on this subject continues to be not only provably false, but the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

It has worked beautifully everywhere it has ever been tried.

The explanation is very simple: people should pay taxes on what they TAKE FROM society, not what they CONTRIBUTE TO society.

That is false. He takes from the community the liberty to access the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities the community provides, as well as the physical advantages nature provides, at that location. This is self-evident, and not open to dispute.

No, his property tax payment is paid for by all whom he robs, especially producers, consumers, and tenants.

No, most infrastructure is created using income, sales, and other taxes that the landowner qua landowner does not pay even nominally.

No, the infrastructure increases the value of what the landowner takes from society in the first place, and only repays a small part of, just like the slave owner repaying a small part of what he takes from his slaves in order to keep them alive and working. And as efforts like Proposition 13 in California have proved, landowners will do anything and everything to increase the welfare subsidy the community is forced to give them, far beyond what can be sustained by the robbery and enslavement of producers and consumers.

There is no "freehold type of lease" in HK. Your claims continue to be false and absurd.

No, there are also leaseholds in some parts of the USA -- the Empire State Building was built on leased land -- and everyone knows they are entirely different from fee simple titles. Including you.

 

What publicly created value are you talking about? Land only starts to have significantly use value when someone uses it, pays taxes to create infrastructure, which in turn increases the value attracting others to buy land which also increases the value. So effectively it is the land owner which creates land value which in turn gives the community a greater tax base. As usual you have it backwards.

You have proved nothing, and your comparison of land owners to slave owners is obnoxious and ludicrous.

The land owners paid the taxes which created the infrastructure. The community had nothing before the land was owned and taxes were paid. It is more like landowners are slaves to the community because the community produces nothing but local governance.

Calling me a liar again I see. We were not discussing total government spending. We were talking about the money the government spends on infrastructure; like roads, initially paid for by taxes on landowners and maintained by fuel taxes. Also, residential streets are usually paid for by the developer, electric lines by the power company who gets its money from users, and water/sewer lines from taxes paid by the landowners.

How many times have you called me a liar in this post alone? 2? 3?

Federal contributions for education comes from income taxes, but most state and almost all county and city funding comes from property taxes.

Nope it would be the non landowner who is pure, distilled essence of greed, thieving and parasitism because he gets to use all of that infrastructure and education mostly paid for by the landowner.

Whoops, that's 4 times now.

 

I also know it is effectively no expiration date as they are automatically renewable on request. Like I said, effectively the same thing as fee simple.

Your accusation is incorrect. I do not and will not accept greed, privilege, parasitism or evil. That is your bag, I am clearly for the honest and best way to tax (progressive income taxes at all levels). That is why you have to go running to the mods crying like a little girl every time I tell the truth about what you have written. It's always the same. You cannot offer any arguments, any facts, any logic, any reason to support your claims, so you have to resort to forcible censorship. What you don't seem to understand is that such behavior merely confirms the evil of your beliefs, like the landowners in Brazil and the Philippines who just have land reform activists assassinated. It's just so much easier not to have to put up with reminders that you are rationalizing evil, isn't it?[/QUOTE]I have not only offered cogent arguments to support my opinions, I have shown you where your opinions are incorrect. You do nothing but special plead for one of the worst tax systems possible, and you call me and others lying simply because we have presented evidence counter to your opinion. IOW Roy, you can't win an argument so long as you tenaciously hold on to the wrong side of the discussion.

And like I said before, I will not tolerate you calling me a liar.

 

Have you banned? If you were banned you did it to yourself.

Insulting me so open and hostile will likely get you banned.

You keep saying things like that yet you have never supported the facts of the matter. One need not disprove a distorted opinion like you put forth, it is self evident

Baloney!

Some do, some don't.

No decision on my part. If there had been a majority of economists agreeing with LVT we would have had it years ago.

You have never proved anything, pro or con.

What I said was, and what I mean is, I will not tolerate your insults and calling me a liar.

 

That is an insult to the intelligence of everyone reading this.

Suppose someone here on the forum were a slave owner trying to rationalize, justify and excuse their greed, thieving and parasitism by means of the same sort of "arguments" you have resorted to in your efforts to rationalize, justify and excuse the depredations of private landowners on society -- which actual slave owners actually did, btw. Would it be "insulting" that slave owner, or "hostile" to them, to identify the fact that they were greedy, thieving parasites simply trying to rationalize and justify their greed, thieving and parasitism?

I have identifed the relevant facts of both economics and history, as well as immutable facts of objective physical reality, that prove my statements are correct.

What is actually self-evident is that land value measures the value of what the landowner expects to take from society in return for no contribution whatever, even while comatose, net of any required repayment in the form of land taxes.

The astronomical value of land just flat-out proves your claims false, with no further argument needed.

LOL! And you accuse me of not having an argument...? ROTFL!!

No. They all do.

Wrong again. You have decided not to know the facts of history, economics, and objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

Nonsense. A majority of economists agree with free trade, and have for centuries, but we don't have that, do we?

What are readers to make of your constant repetition of such bald falsehoods? As just one example, I proved to you that property taxes -- of which little more than half are levied on land value -- do not even pay for the majority of public education, when you had falsely claimed they paid for all of it but the small federal contribution.

Readers might be more persuaded by these disingenuous protestations of yours if you were not constantly insulting me (see above), or if you had ever actually posted a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I called you a liar.

But of course, that never happened, did it?

 

You have still not posted an iota of reality supporting LVT.

BTW, if you did not call me a liar why were you banned? If your posts had not been deleted for being so obnoxious it would be easy to prove. You do it to yourself. I have reminded you several times, I will not tolerate your calling me a liar or insulting me personally.