I don't necessarily agree with everything but I do think there are some interesting proposals. I agree with rolling up capital gains and wage income into one tax. The argument for a lower capital gains tax is that it would induce investment but the evidence for that is mixed to say the least, not only that but the true problem is underconsumption as households are now simultaneously paying down debt as well as increasing stocks of savings. Jamaica has a flat tax of 25% and it doesn't collect capital gains and the economy has been terrible for Jamaicans. It is very fricking sad and annoying to see. I also think the tax exemption based on median household income is an interesting concept as well. However, there will not be any reform simply because there are too many jobs related to the tax system. Another thing, public debt is irrelevant in a fiat economy. Too many people (preferably goldbugs) do not understand that is totally impossible to bankrupt a government that issues its own currency. The only time since the introduction of fiat currency the US defaulted was in 1979 and that was simply because the Republicans simply would not raise the debt limit. Balanced budgets and debt limits are irrelevant.
There is no such right to property in land, as land is not a product of labor. Locke's argument for property in land is incoherent and self-contradictory, and his central idea of "mixing" labor with land is physically impossible, nothing but a misleading metaphor. Garbage. Such claims are incoherent and indefensible. Labor earns its product, and NOTHING ELSE. It certainly does not earn ownership of whatever location the labor was performed in. And it certainly does not earn ownership of others' rights to liberty. How can I erase your liberty to use the land by using it myself? It would be more reasonable to say that having used it, I should rightly yield it to the person whose turn is next. Except that in fact, there is not a single square inch of privately owned land, anywhere in the world, whose current title of ownership can be traced through an unbroken line of consensual transactions to a first user. NOT ONE SQUARE INCH. So you are just repeating a deceitful rationalization for landowner thieving. It can never rightly belong to anyone anyway. So by taking a turn at using the land, I permanently erase everyone else's rights to take a turn? What arrant nonsense. Nor has any other society ever done so, ever. Because there can never be a natural right to property in land, as it would erase everyone else's natural rights to liberty. It's been known for centuries that Locke's contrived rationalization for landed property doesn't hold water, and has also never been the basis of any actual land title, anywhere, ever. Nope. My argument is based on the objective fact of physical reality that everyone is naturally at liberty to use land, and only forcible removal of that liberty can stop them. There is not and can never be such a natural right to property in land, as proved above. True: mine is based on objective physical fact; yours is just a rationalization for privilege and injustice that some liar made up to serve the beneficiaries of that privilege and injustice.
both arguments appear wrong, whether one has a title to land or a natural right to the land, the land and its fruits belong to everyone and its fruits should be shared by all equally. many people choose not to work because they are not given a fair amount of fruit in return for their labors on the land. the reason for taxation is because the entitled land owners keep a bigger share of the harvest from the land for themselves, without sharing the resources to the less fortunate fairly.
the idiot voters are victims of oppression by the rich, this is a nation where only few pay most of the taxes because only few have enough money to pay taxes. when they see the fruits of their labors stolen by the rich and they have no control over it, they distract themselves with alcohol, tobacco, food, lotteries, gambling, new cars, bling, and sports and entertainment. many of the rich also distract themselves the same way due to their conscience, though they have the means to hide their addictions better than the middle class and poor, who have a higher risk of failing and a smaller safety net when they do.
Not sure where the foundation for your opinion originates because every economic philosopher over the last 300 years from Marx to Von Mises linked their economic philosophy to the natural right of property and the political ideology of the United States is expressly based upon our "unalienable" (natural) rights in the Declaration of Independence which includes the natural right of property. Of course the natural right of property isn't really about "ownership" but instead is about use. A person doesn't literally own the land but instead establishes a right to use the land through their labor. If they stop expending their labor on the land then they lose the right of use to it. The fact that you might find Locke's arguments to be "incoherent and self-contradictory" is not a reflection of Locke's arguments but instead a reflection of your incapacity to understand Locke's arguments. Like many you confuse "title of property" with the "natural right of property" and the two are not the same. Title to land and property is transferrable but a "natural right" is non-transferrable. Of course this thread is not specifically about the natural rights of the person but it's foundation is certainly based upon American political ideology where those natural rights are the foundation in the justification of the existence of government as expressed in the following words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (natural) Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html ... and that are protected by the following Amendment to the US Constitution: Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain (natural and civil) rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html#sthash.cFavmuaE.dpuf Ultimately you're not disagreeing with me but instead you're disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and those that created the United States of America.
The foundation for this problem exists because our laws of property are based upon "title of ownership" as opposed to the "natural right of property" in the United States. By way of example. Under the "natural right of property" a person establishes a right to use the land through their labor. The farmer clears and plows the field, plants the crop, maintains the crop, and harvests the crop which establishes their right to the use of the land as well as their right to the harvest from the crop to provide for their support and comfort. Their right to use the land only exists so long as they continuously renew it with their labor season after season, year after year, with their labor. If they stop using that land to provide for their support and comfort then they've abandoned the land and lose their natural rights related to it. On the other hand, in America, a person can purchase title to the land never expending any personal labor related to the land, they could purchase a "tractor" that plows, cultivates, and harvests the land without any personal labor being involved so they've failed to establish a natural right to use the land or to the crops produced but they do have "title" to the harvest that they can sell. They can stop using the land and yet they still retain the statutory title of ownership even though they've effectively abandoned the use of the land. When we come to employment we can also apply the natural right of property. A company can produce "widgets" and the employee, based upon their labor, establishes the natural right of property to the widget and the value of the widget provides for their "support and comfort" and that's non-transferable because natural rights are non-transferable. The owner (employer) purchases the "title" to the widget but cannot purchase the natural right to the widget and it becomes the owners responsibility to ensure the "support and comfort" to the employee based upon the value of the widget that the employee retains natural right of property. For the employer to not provide the "support and comfort" to the employee, based upon the value of the widget, constitutes a violation of the natural right of property that the employee established with their labor. It is for this reason (the natural right of property) that as an American Libertarian I support the following statement by FDR: “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act) The United States is producing about $16 trillion a year in income and the cost of ensuring that no employee's natural right of property is being violated, based upon my estimates, costs about $4 trillion or only 25% of the wealth that the employees are creating with their labor. Coincidentally, as a businessman that's owned several successful enterprises, employee compensation is usually targeted to be about 25% of gross revenue for the successful enterprise. That leads me to believe that the only reason that some enterprises don't ensure adequate compensation that would provide a decent living to their employees is because they're incompetent when it comes to creating their business plan and operating their business based upon a successful business plan. Many like to blame the employee for not earning a decent living when, in fact, it's the employer's fault because the employer is incompetent. This isn't addressed by my tax proposal although the tax proposal does establish the "Exemption" creating the foundation for taxation based upon the household first being able to earn a decent living that provides for their basic support and comfort. The tax proposal doesn't ensure the decent living but the Exemption does establish that the household won't be subjected to the income tax unless they're earning a decent living. There are those that say everyone should have "a dog in the hunt" when it comes to the income tax and that can be done if we first ensure that everyone is earning more than a decent living.
Locke included a caveat that addressed this. A person can only establish a natural right to the use of the land if there is "enough, and as good" as remaining for all other individuals. In short if a person used their labor to establish a right to the use of "40 acres of land" it would not infringe upon anyone else's rights so long as they could go out and establish a right to the use of "40 acres of land" that was just as good as the land where the first person secured a right to use. Of course the caveat of "enough, and as good" as has not been complied with under our "laws of title" so a person can't simply go out and find their own "40 acres" to live on in nature. There are also other caveats to the natural right of property included in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, that are not being adhered to. For example, based upon Locke's arguments a person can accumulate too much "wealth" by possessing more than they can reasonably use for their "support and comfort" in their lifetime. As Locke points out it is very obvious to all of society when this occurs and we know that is true. No one can justify the amount of wealth that some people, like Donald Trump, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet possess because there's no way they could rationally spend that much wealth on just providing for their personal support and comfort in even 1,000 or 5,000 lifetimes. The super-wealthy are violating the Right of Property of the "common" (all people) because they have acquired "title" (that is not based upon their physical labor) to far more than they could ever rationally use in thousands of years. As mentioned Locke states this is obvious and it is obvious to everyone that isn't a complete idiot.
Once again this thread is on taxation and not the laws of property or the natural right of property but I will note that in many cases there is a dispute between myself, as a Libertarian where the basis of my opinion is on the "natural right of property" of the person, with others that claim to be Libertarian but that base their opinion on the "statutory laws of property based upon title" that John Locke was expressly arguing against. The word "Liberty" is the root word for Libertarian and "Liberty" is expressly about the Freedom to Exercise" our "Natural Rights" as a person. I can't accept a person as truly being a Libertarian when they oppose the "Natural Right of Property" of the person in supporting "statutory laws of ownership based upon Title" as opposed to the natural right of property.
It is a moot point anyways, because John Locke only advocated land taxes. “It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them” – John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Sec. 140 If you look up the word “estate” you will find that at the time John Locke was alive the word was used exclusively in reference to land. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/estate
Once again that is false based upon analysis. My prior analysis of 2013 revealed that the authorized general expenditures of Congress that are predominately funded by the income tax only equaled 14.5% of the gross personal income for the year. My proposal, because of the Exemption, only taxes about 50% of gross personal income and it would have resulted in a 29% income tax rate on all gross household income above $50,000 per year and families with income in excess of $50,000 per year can afford to have their income above that threshold taxed at 29%. For example the effective tax rate on a household with $100,000 per year would only have been 14.5% and they could afford to pay it. In 2014 that dropped to only 12% of all gross income and the same household with $100,000 per year in income would have only had an effective tax rate of 12% on their gross income. Anecdotally I was in that "$100,000/yr" in household income bracket in both 2013 and 2014 and I would have paid less in personal income taxes under my proposal and the only other difference is that while I would have paid less there would have been no deficits in either year under my proposal. We, the American People, have the money to fully fund the authorized expenditures and the only problem is that our government isn't collecting that money in the form of taxation from those that can easily afford to pay the taxes.
Locke, in Section 140 referenced, is not referring to the legal definition of the "estate" from the 15th Century but instead to the common definition of the "estate" that had existed since the 14th Century that refers to "3.(archaic) The condition of one's fortunes; prosperity, possessions. [from 14thc.]" included in the Wikipedia definitions. Locke never resorted to using the statutory laws (or legal definitions) as the foundation for his arguments and many of them that existed, such as land ownership granted by title (which is the legal definition from the 15th Century you referred to) was expressly what Locke was arguing against in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. You're merely misinterpreting what Locke was saying when it comes to the taxation of the "estate" because Locke was referring to the fortunes; prosperity, and possessions of the person, the common definition of the estate, in his arguments related to taxation by the government with the consent of the people.
It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Sec. 140 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr11.txt BTW - This statement by Locke is a key foundation of my tax proposal. My proposal addresses the taxation of the "fortunes" of the household where that fortune exists but does not tax those that, due to under-compensation, effectively have no fortune or "estate" to be taxed.
I disagree. John Locke made arguments for the absolute right of property in the products of labor, but his arguments for property in land were subject to his proviso that enough, and as good, [be] left in common for others. Given that Locke's arguments for property in the products of labor are absolute but that his arguments for property in land are built on more questionable terms, we can safely assume that Locke was using the definition of estate that was common to his time, in which estate referred exclusively to landed property. Finally, John Locke's writings on the subject of property are not nearly as precise nor as logical as Henry Georges writings on the topic. You really should throw all your John Locke books in the trash can and pick up a copy of Progress and Poverty by Henry George.
If we (the American People) had that money, it would not be necessary to collect that money from individuals who could contribute it. That you want to demand that contribution demonstrates we do not have it.
Once again this is a misinterpretation of Locke's writing on the natural right of property. In point of fact Locke doesn't treat physical objects that are not consumed (e.g. food) any differently than land. In both cases the person doesn't literally own the land or physical object but instead the establish a "right of property" for the use of the land and or physical object. Let me provide an example. I'm walking through the woods and there's a tree branch that I decide to use as a walking stick. I don't have to do anything to it to acquire a right to use the branch as a walking stick except to actually use it as a walking stick. Of I could carve or shape it if I choose but that doesn't effect my natural right of property to use the tree branch as a walking stick. What gives me the "right of property" is the fact that I'm using it as a walking stick. If I stop using that branch as a walking stick then I've effectively abandoned it so someone else can pick it up and use it as a walking stick establishing their "right of property" for the use of the branch as a walking stick. That is literally no different than finding a small piece of land and building a house on it to live in. As long as the person is living in the house they have a natural right of property to use the land that the house occupies. If they move out of the house and no longer live their then then lose the right to use the land or the house by abandonment because they're not using either. Henry Georges was not an advocate for the natural rights of the person but instead was an economist that address problems with economic systems that were not based upon the natural rights of property of the person. His writings are exceptional in that regard but if the economic society existed based upon the natural rights of property then his work "Progress and Poverty" becomes completely irrelevant. Let us remember that while Locke did address "commerce" he never made any claim that there was a "natural right of commerce" because "commerce" doesn't fall within the criteria of a "natural right" because it is not inherent in the person and requires more than one person to conduct. The "natural right of property" relates to the "generalist" that provides for all they require from nature to provide for their support and comfort and not to the "specialist" that relies upon commerce with others to provide for their support and comfort. Locke's arguments for commerce are based upon the fact that by specializing more of everything can be produced by the same number of people, increasing the comfort for all, than the generalists can provide for themselves. We know that Locke was correct because today the United States, through specialization and commerce, produces about four times as much in goods and services than all of the American people need for basic support and comfort. The problem that Henry Georges addresses is that we don't ensure that all of the people are receiving at least the minimum necessary to prevent poverty which exists when people don't have enough to provide for their basic support and comfort even though more than enough is being produced. We produce four-times more than what is necessary but due to a violation of the natural rights of the person there are those that don't receive enough to provide for their basic support and comfort and not having enough for basic support and comfort is the bottom line definition for poverty. .
What you're actually highlighting is a flaw with Capitalism, that we both embrace, when compared to socialism, that we both oppose. The US produces over $15 trillion in annual income and there are about 150 million households averaging 2.54 people per household. In a "mathematically perfect" society under a "mathematically perfect" form of socialism, neither of which exist, then the income for all households would be $100,000 per year to support 2.54 people. That household could easily pay $12,500 (12.5%) in taxes, $15,000 (15% in taxes) or even $20,000 (20%) or $25,000 (25%) in taxes and still be able to fully fund an exceptional standard of living, that in addition to funding basic necessities, could afford to own a home, purchasing a new car every few years, take vacations, fund their retirement, and send their 54% of a child to college. But we don't live in that "mathematically perfect" society or under "mathematically perfect" socialism where everyone has an exceptional standard of living. We live under imperfect capitalism that has a huge disparity in income between the households creating the situation where many households can't afford to pay any taxes while some households could afford to pay virtually all of their income in taxes and still have over $75,000 in after-tax income that would provide them with the exceptional standard of living in America that "perfect" socialism would theoretically provide for all households but that's not what I will do. Instead I will merely provide the actual incomes of households under capitalism to establish who can, and who can't, afford to pay taxes in America's capitalistic economy. While I don't have a current breakdown I will use information from 2009 because based upon "quintiles" it's still accurate (see thumbnail attachment). Based upon this reporting of quintiles we can see that basically the bottom 60% of income households fall into the "can't afford the taxes" category when compared to how much could be collected in taxes if all income was distributed equally. That leave the top 40% as being those households that have to pay the taxes because they can afford to and still retain an exceptional standard of living with their "after-tax" income. As this breakdown of income also indicates the top 5% of income households can certainly afford the highest amount of taxation while still maintaining an exceptionally good standard of living on after-tax dollars. There are some on the right that advocate that all income households pay the income tax but under capitalism that only works if we have wage/compensation laws that ensure a quality standard of living PLUS enough excess income to be able to afford to pay the tax. That is not what it means or even implies. The US Congress as the elected representatives of the people (not Democrats or Republicans) authorize spending based upon the will of and with the consent of the American People. Those same representatives of the People, as John Locke points out in Section 140 of his Second Treatise of Civil Government (cited in above posts) also have the responsibility, based upon the consent of and in compliance with the will of the American People, to impose the taxation necessary to fund the expenditures that the American People want and consent to.
This is such pity-party BS it's laughable! I'm a voter and I'm not oppressed?! There is NOTHING standing in the way of me achieving more other than ME! How do the majority spend trillion$ each year in non-essential spending yet don't have anything to fund the government which they are demanding? No one is stealing anything?? Every person decides what they wish to do in life; how much education, what type of work, how to live their life, etc. which means each person is 100% in control of their life!
The money you call income is not produced. That money is credit, recognizing the contributions each of us produce individually and exchange by placing value into our shared economy. That Bill has a different income than Sally reflects that Bill put more into the economy than Sally. Making income "mathematically perfect" so that everyone receives the same credit regardless of their contribution would be the same as awarding every baseball player an equal number of home-runs on his stat card or every student an equal number of A grades on her report cardregardless of actual performance. It would only hide that Joe produced an F performance studying mathematics. (and guess which student advocates making credits "mathematically perfect" ?)
the simple answer is those who do have the money don't want to give it to those who don't have the money through taxation. they are unfairly given extra credit for the product of their labors, while everyone else is given no credit or credit they can't afford to repay.
their capital, it takes money to make money. they either have a legacy of capital from their families, or found some way to exploit the weak legally to gain their capital, very few actually make their capital through actual capitalism in an ethical way. its so unfair how they sit from their high horses and pay the politicians for how our tax code ought to be balanced to fit their interests. they are deciders of who gets taxes from the government, or even credit in the private market for their labors. the Taxpayer is who is a net contributor and not net recipient is very powerful.
Are you crazy? The wealthy in the US...and don't get squeamish because this is a fact...already pay the lion's share of income taxes! Do you want them to pay everything? Once they pay everything they get to make the laws! 100 million so-called Americans pay little to nothing each year in income taxes! Yet the US is collecting about $3.5 trillion in taxes...much of it from your evil wealthy people.
He is. Because his contribution is carrying this country. And if you tax away the credit you offered him for that contribution, he may contribute less next year.
