Base taxes on net worth only.

Okay, I see. So when you said, "Well then, I say we keep it simple then, and only factor in real property, financial assets, and debt," you really meant "real property and financial assets less debt." That's why I was unclear about what you meant. I thought you were advocating double-counting.

 

It might be interesting how the "Net Worth" is to be determined??? How many more Federal Employees, that currently draw over 2M$/lifetime in wages and benefits.....would they need???

 

Just a quick example; What if I owned a 200 unit apartment house worth 50M$, no debt, but for some reason it was empty of tenants. I would owe at say 10%, in that year.. 5M$ in taxes....In reverse, if all units were rented at say 2K/mo, 24/yr, I could show millions in profit, still paying the 5M in taxes.

I think you would add thousands of lawyers alone to fight challenges. IMO, property value or even some financial asset values can be dramatically different from State to State or even with in a State.

Think about this; If States were charged for all cost of the Federal, that is in place of people...States could determine how to collect the money, then send to the Federal, not individuals.

 

The farmer with $10,000,000.00 in land needs to sell that land to someone who will maximize it's production value.

 

I see you've never worked a farm or ranch. Research it a bit and get back to us with your proposal.

 

You do not seem to be able to think out side of the box the con artists created. So, property close to water may be worth more or less depending on it's use and function. There are many reasons why the land may have differing values. It is still being protected by the same infrastructure system and mechanisms.These factors will generate motivations that bring about a different looking societal structure. But the cost equability of the governmental (shared) infrastructure will be the stabilizing principle for commerce even if the cost of improvements is different for individual usage. True capitalism needs a foundation found only through an equitably principled constitution.

 

What your ignoring is probably the most important factor of the free market, supply/demand, principles of an economy, in turn the collectable taxes from that society. To start with idle land or infrastructure is generally for sale anyway, but for lack of demand (currently caused by the economy), it's not selling, which your idea would only decrease that need, then price of the items. The 10% is easier to explain with, but keep in mind actual asset wealth of property owners, including corporations is going to be well into the trillions, 16T in 401K type plans alone. According to this site that figure was over 83,700 Billion US$, in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth

However any source determines value, tens of thousand will disagree, filing grievances.....

I've long had a plan out there, knowing it's neither Constitutional or possible, to hold the Federal to the House's annual budget. Each State according to their Wealth Factor (your basic premise) is charged a portion of the Budget. Say California has 12% of the NW and Wyoming 2%, it would be up to these States to collect 12 and 2% of the Federal Budget from tax payers in their State, along with their own needs. It would eliminate the IRS, current Federal Tax codes and make people realize where the money is coming from.

 

So says the Constitution. That won't gonna be changed.

There is no depends or ifs about it go check property values per sq/ft.

Services the State and City and County provide. But the OP is about net worth and not limited to real property. Your entire net worth would have to be inventoried and valued each year. Who is going to do that?

WHAT you are now advocating a forced sale of your property? Now you have really gone over the deep end. And what do you think local governments will do? Lower or get rid of property taxes and go to higher sales and excise taxes.

But just showed you don't care about one of or most cherished individual rights.

I'm an atheist he speaks to you before me, the Constitution and Federalist Papers talk to me, you should try them.

What is not fair about them and why shouldn't everyone pay for the infrastructure whcih we ALL use?

 

How exactly would prices go down and wages go up. If you are taking in the same amount of money the people that are hit with a higher tax will simply pass it on. If you live in an apartment or rent a house you not the owner pays the property tax. Yes he might write the check but he is using your money to pay it. If the property tax goes up guess who's rent increases. Businesses who produce products will do the same. If someone owns a factory and also has alot of land is just going to increase his draw from the company to make up the short fall in his salary and increase the cost of his goods if he has to.

 

Erroneous assumption based on negation of obvious factors. Those selling assets would be documenting such to insure that they not pay taxes on them. Required reporting would include item identification (bar code or such). Computer programs that track items would know immediately where the item went. Manufacturers would need more regulators that would document production and safety standards at once. More jobs made there.

 

https://youtu.be/QtRKxBZ1Y3Q

https://www.google.com/search?q=lar...0CDYQsARqFQoTCJWO79_Ql8gCFcjLgAodEnQPxg&dpr=1

 

A public referendum would change this structure. There is no piecemeal approach.

 

So what happened to my right to privacy then if I have to document to the government every private sale of something I own to them. Who is going to do the inventory to insure I have reported everything I own? What if I just tell them it broke and I threw it away?

 

How are you going to register your used car? That is why at least in my state the tax is payed when you register the car when you buy it privately.

 

I know I could not afford to pay 4.25% net worth tax. It would literally break me , I would have to pay about five times my annual income in taxes. I farm, I am asset rich but cash poor. That is the one thing that the op does not take into consideration for small businesses people.

 

So then, if you cannot lease enough property or utilize enough of it to make it productive yourself to pay 4.25% in taxes at today's prices then I would question either the usefulness of having the farm or your ability to make adequate use of the land. One thing this model does not support is the hoarding of resources that are not productive. https://youtu.be/QtRKxBZ1Y3Q http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/cache/arl01481.htm

 

The current taxes have burdens which fall an both wages and prices. You remove those burdens and wages go up and prices come down (an established land value tax is a burdenless tax).

Normally that would be mostly true, but I advocate a land value tax and in the case of the land value tax that does not happen, it cannot happen. Land value tax is different than all other taxes because it is a tax on a factor of production which is FIXED in supply. Unlike other factors of production, you can tax land at 100% of its (rental) value and the same amount of land will still exist after the tax is levied. Since the supply of land doesn't change, even when taxed heavily, neither does the amount of rent that can be collected from it. People who want to buy land will see this tax and discount the tax out of the price they are willing to pay for the land. So this takes us to the ONLY side effect that land value taxation causes, it causes land prices to fall. A near 100% tax on land value would cause land exchange prices to fall to near $0. Land value tax cannot increase the price of ANYTHING, but it does make the exchange price of land fall drastically. Ultra low land prices are good for people who want to buy a home, start a business or farm.

Existing property tax is a tax on both land and on capital. I do not advocate for taxes on capital because those taxes create scarcity. If you tax only land value then the landowner pays the tax, and the renter pays none of it, nor is the renter burdened by it whatsoever.

Under a land value tax (as the primary source of revenue) the government would collect all the rent of land, and the landowners can't have any of it. So, even if you are right about the landowner being able to pass the cost of the tax to tenants or consumers – which you are not – the government would just increase the taxes even more. Landowners are not allowed to profit from monopolizing what nature provided, end of story.

The advantage of land value tax is that when you pay taxes you get land in return. So for anyone wanting to build a home, business or farm, they don't have to buy land AND pay taxes, they just pay taxes based upon the value of land which they want (remember land prices are near zero), and the cost of taxes on income, trade and savings is gone.

 

If you own a lot of valuable land you owe it to yourself to read Progress and Poverty. You might not like what it says, but it will inform you of the risks involved. I recently read a comment that Henry George “is the Nikola Tesla of economics” and I agree with that comment. Read the book, because even if local government switched to land value taxation it would have a huge impact on your personal finances.

The book is kind of boring so I skipped around till I had it all read. You might start reading at this chapter: http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp35.htm

 

What you are proposing is that government own all the land and finance itself through a continuous auction of land for temporary occupation to the highest bidder.

This makes any ability to occupy land fleeting, subjecting the tenant to immediate eviction any time a higher bid is received. No one in their right mind would make any improvements to the land. This perverse idea's biggest incentive is to get as much out of the land as possible as quickly as possible and then leave the mess to others to clean up. It would quickly turn the entire nation into one huge trash heap occupied by millions of homeless squatters.
This is far from even remotely feasible.

 

What you are calling “temporary” could be 50 years or more, but otherwise, yeah.

That is how most people live now, anyhow … but at least under the geoist system they wouldn't have to pay taxes on top of the rent.

How are you going to pay the land value tax if you don't make improvements? The people who make improvements are people who will keep the land. People like you probably won't be holding onto valuable land for long, because you are not smart enough to see the advantage of building improvements.

Like in Hong Kong and Singapore? Singapore is the cleanest country on earth and the second highest collector of land rent, Hong Kong collects more.

Below is a partial extract of a letter advising the Soviet Union NOT TO USE TAXES WHICH BURDEN PRODUCTION AND TRADE, like the U.S. is doing. They even call it a DANGER! They advised the Soviet Union (Russia) to avoid other taxes and make land value taxation the primary source of government revenue. This letter is signed by the most respected free market economists in the world (including four Nobel Prize winning economists):