Tax the 1%...

Won't be reading anymore; nor replying to you. You will be on ignore....

 

They most definitely do need to be addressed, because the "obvious" answers that most people believe are actually incorrect -- as we will see in the case of your own answers, below.

"Malicious nature"? English landowners murdered a million landless Irish peasants in just a few years by owning the land, and you presume to question the malicious nature of their privilege? How many millions of murders would be enough for you?

Everything is finite -- except the viciousness and dishonesty of apologists for privilege and injustice, of course. The difference with land is that it is not merely finite but FIXED: there will not be any more nor any less of it.

That's Strike One: you don't understand the difference between finite and fixed.

No. That claim is just flat, outright false as a matter of objective, physical fact, as a few minutes with Zillow with confirm.

Strike Two.

Bingo. And private ownership of land means we have to pay a greedy, privileged parasite full market value just for PERMISSION to do something with it that contributes to the quality of life.

How about by making just compensation for what you take from others and keeping what you produce -- i.e., justice? What a concept!

Why always make up gratuitous ad hominem $#!+?

Secure, exclusive tenure and control do not require ownership, as Hong Kong proves. In fact, as any share-cropping farmer proves.

Wrong. The fact that the landowner can legally demand his (often very large) something-for-nothing proves his title is a net cost to the community. Google "rent-seeking behavior" and start reading.

That's Strike Three, Casey. You're out.

Wrong again. The landless not only pay all the other taxes that finance desirable public services and infrastructure, but must also pay landowners full market value just for permission to access the desirable public services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for. They must pay for government TWICE so that greedy, idle, privileged landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.

Strike Four.

That is also objectively false. You just need some money. A landowner can just demand the money from a tenant, and produce exactly nothing of value for our economy.

Strike Five. But who's counting?

No, because by definition, the landowner qua landowner never does anything but take. What he repays in property taxes is only a fraction of what he takes from the community in the first place by owning the land, as the land's value proves: land's unimproved value is nothing but the market's estimate of how much more the landowner will be able to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever repay in taxes on it.

If you want to see something really short-sighted, self-serving and self-deceptive, try your fallacious and absurd rationalizations for landowner privilege and parasitism, above and below.

Unlike you, gottzilla knows I have proposed an incomparably better idea: liberty and justice in our institutions of land tenure and public finance.

False. Brute, animal possession is not property, sorry, because it must be forcibly defended by the holder. The distinguishing characteristic of property, which makes it a uniquely human institution, is that A is willing to defend B's property against incursion by C. No other animal species exhibits that behavior -- and there is a good reason why we do.

Strike Six.

Brute, animal territoriality is not property, as explained above.

Nope. Wrong again. In the hunter-gatherer (and later nomadic herding) economies we evolved in, no one ever had an individual territory or property in land. It was always community or tribal land that everyone in the tribe was free to use non-exclusively. Communities competed over territory and tried to defend their own -- and many failed and suffered extinction as a result -- but that was again brute, animal territoriality, not property. Individual landed property never existed until the advent of settled agriculture and significant fixed improvements several thousand years ago, and was not fully implemented until Roman law thousands of years later.

Strike Seven.

False. Hong Kong proves you don't need a title of ownership, just secure, exclusive tenure. Try to find a willingness to know that fact, and to understand what it implies: those who enjoy secure, exclusive land tenure should rightly repay its market value to the government and community that provide it.

Strike Eight.

Why do you always feel you have to make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me?

That would be producers and entrepreneurs, not greedy, idle landowners or other privilege holders.

LAND is inherently free because it exists unconditionally. But land is not "everything," and I neither said nor implied that it was.

Clear?

Again, you have just made that $#!+ up and falsely attributed it to me. I have neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Can you explain why you constantly make false claims about what I have plainly written?

Or better yet, explain your answer to The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

 

You have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

 

I used the UMBRELLA term to describe all privately owned property ... whether vacant land or buildings (or both). If anyone is trying to evade capture, it's the person who equivocates to bolster some lame argument. That'd be you, Dear.

 

We should all be planning ahead for retirement, of course. If you choose not to do that yet expect to be funded, while those who saved and sacrificed all their lives don't receive a dime, you are not a good person. You have no sense of fairness or justice.

Disabled people who are not institutionalised should be cared for by family, of course. If there is a disabled person in your family struggling alone, you are not a good family. You have no sense of fairness or justice.

Welfare is emergency funding for unexpected calamity. If it's absorbed by the 'not good' people as per above, there will always be less for genuine hardship. THAT is truly unjust.

 

I didn't say I supported Warren's proposal or that it would be practical, just that it is not inherently unconstitutional, as the article at the ABA site explained.

Assessment is not that difficult in the age of data. The real problem is that the rich would be encouraged to change their domiciles to the states that already have the most rich people to reduce their own tax burden, making the tax even more unequal. That is why a national land value tax apportioned by population would be far better: land value per capita is more equal than assets per capita, and land can't move.

 

No he hasn't. Not even slightly.

You have, though

 

Right; that was your juvenile rhetorical trick: surreptitiously changing the subject from land (or privilege) to property generally. And I did not let you get away with it.

No, dear, that would NOT be me. I am the one person on this forum who is most vigilant in spotting and exposing equivocation fallacies because I know how common they are, and how difficult they are for most people to see.

 

BWAHAHHAAAAAA!! Oh, but he has. And so have you. And you know it.

Not. Even. Slightly.

 

Oh my lord .... you're trolling now, surely.

You yourself have referred to property as property throughout this and other threads. We don't call it 'privilege', or argue the difference between land and property ... you do. And you do it because you're reduced to doing so to try and bolster your terrible arguments.

 

No, pretty much everyone who reads your posts has your number immediately.

 

But somehow can't refute anything I say with facts or logic...

Uh-huh. Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.

 

Right: when I meant PROPERTY and not LAND or REAL ESTATE or PRIVILEGE, which are four different things.

Right, because you have to equivocate, while I am careful not to equivocate.

You cannot even imagine what it would be like to be able to construct an argument as strong as mine. That is why you cannot offer any facts or logic to refute them, just disingenuous fallacies, ad hominems and evasions.

 

It's been done, endlessly. Even it if it hadn't, it wouldn't change anything. Your posts self-refute.

 

I rest my case.

 

Irrelevant to the conversation.

Lots of people planned. Didn't plan on Trump destroying the economy.

 

Everything you don't like is irrelevant or off topic.

Meantime, what does Trump have to do with it? The whole point of planning for the future is to be able to fund yourself irrespective of unexpected problems (like Trump, like pandemics, etc). You're supposed to expect the unexpected, and cover for it.

 

Off topic is off topic. Your complaining about it doesn't change that fact.

People planned for the future. Then got cancer and spent half their savings getting well.
People planned for the future and had an investment banker steal their savings.
The best laid plans.

That you want to punish people because they're not as successful as you is clear.
Your desire to punish them is still off topic.

 

I have a better idea: Since you obviously do not wish to reply directly to me--you can do no better than to instruct me to "go elsewhere"--I will simply ignore your future posts.

You do not wish to debate me (in any meaningful sense of the term); rather, you just wish to troll me.

Therefore, goodbye...

 

You tell everyone they're off topic the minute they challenge you. It's tedious as heck!

Meantime ... I'm not 'successful', I'm merely responsible. There are no frills, no luxuries, and it's all been very hard work. I have friends who are 'successful', meantime. One of them has just applied for welfare, because he frittered away his capital on dicey investments, multi-million dollar houses, $60 bottles of wine, and overseas travel.

 

If you think something in the ABA article refutes what I have posted then post it. I can discuss or debate hearsay claims.

Why do you think it took a constitutional amendment to have the income tax, a direct tax on the citizens?

And you did not address the apportionment issue which was the main issue of my post. Please do, how do you get around that?

Why do you think it took a constitutional amendment to have the income tax, a direct tax on the citizens?

The real problem is how do you inventory and assess the values of those citizens wealth in order to tax it? At what point in time do you tax it a person's actual wealth especially the highly wealthy fluctuates daily even hourly. What happens with that government evaulation is challenged in court? What about just compensation when the government takes someone wealths you that pesky 5th Amendment in our Bill of Rights

" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Where is the person supposed to come up with the money to pay the tax on their assets that are not in cash? A person worth $100,000,000 how much cash do you think they keep hanging around?

 

Irrelevant and innarcurate of course. Why not stick to the topic?

 

Contstantly being off topic while claiming you are "clearly on topic" is what is tedious.

See your second paragraph for clarification.

 

True. Apologies.

 

R.I.P.