Elizabeth Warren Proposes "Wealth Tax"

That's another reason to tax only the land value: it's much easier to get an accurate appraisal, as any competent professional appraiser can confirm, and there is no reason to even view the premises, let alone go inside. In any case, if all appraisals by licensed appraisers are automatically submitted to the tax authority for inclusion in computerized valuation rolls, that would make enough data available to make assessments effectively watertight. If people want to waste their money futilely challenging those land value assessments in court, that's their business.

 

in the present day economic system the wealthy are taking money out of circulation driving inflation into the next universe and there is no compensation for the little guy, its not like your 401k is automatically going to increase to match inflationary losses, you are required to trade on the market to make up the difference.

The whole monetary system is a scam. They need a luxury tax based upon a percentage that increases to form a cap.

 

Right.

Wrong. A luxury tax is trivially easy to evade. What we need is a tax on land value, because land can't hide, and it can't move.

 

Sure but taxing land is way more difficult than you may think. The easiest method is total assets that include trust accounts, but good luck with that. The only way that might be possible is if you can get the general publics money behind it, and somehow avoid assassination in the process. These people dont play by the rules because there is no one to 'make' them. Anyone who tries paints a target on their chest. The patsy takes out the do gooder, and an insider takes out the patsy disconnecting the link to the person on top that actually gave the order so they get away with it scot-free, 10 different stories are circulated so no one has a clue what really went on, everyone argues over it for the next 50 years, courts ask all the wrong questions that sound good but fail to convict which is gauranteed if the guv is involved, that method is as old as mankind itself and has been used with extreme efficiency throughout history. jfk

 

No it isn't. It is trivially easy. That is why it was implemented successfully even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read.

No it isn't. Total assets can be hidden or moved out of the taxing jurisdiction.

The point of democracy is that assassinating elected leaders only stiffens the resolve of those who voted for them.

That's why it is crucial to make sure the people understand the issue, not just a few leaders.

 

Im all ears

 

That's not Constitutional, and the many challenges to such law will prove.

That's not a wealth tax. That's a savings tax.

But, seeing how Liberals love to Göbbelize and obfuscate by equivocation -- you know, income and wealth to name but one area -- I guess it should come as no surprise that Liberals would Göbbelize and equivocate wealth with savings.

Well, they can get around that by reducing the amount of money they give to charities and other acts of philanthropy.

It's all good and everyone benefits, right?

They would invest that money in other assets that can be readily liquefied.

So what if banks have less money to loan?

No problem. Instead of a 2.47% mortgage rate, banks can charge 8.5% to make up for the shortfall in deposits.

Then of course, tying all the money up in assets, well, that might lead to Deflation, so you can look forward to paying 8.5% on house that constantly decreases in value.

But, it's for the good of the people, right?

 

Just feed all real estate purchase and rental transaction data and all professional private real estate appraisals into an optimization program to determine the publicly created unimproved rental value of all land parcels, and send the owners bills for what they are taking.

 

You confuse wealth with income.

 

You believe real estate is the only form of wealth? And you'd have to pass a Constitutional amendment for the federal government to apply such a direct tax on the citizens.
The rental value of something is determined by the two parties agreeing on the rent not the federal government or some computer program that will attempt to equalize rents across our vast country.

 

No, you simply made that up. The subject of the exchange you responded to was how easy it is to tax land, not wealth. See posts 26, 29, 30, 31 and 33.

It's not a tax on citizens, it's a tax on landowner privilege; and it is better suited to junior governments anyway. National governments are best suited to get revenue from Pigovian taxes and seigniorage from money issuance.

Nope. It's determined by the market. Value is what something would trade for in open, arm's-length exchange, not what it did trade for between two family members or business cronies.

You simply made that up. There is no reason to equalize rents -- indeed, it would defeat the whole purpose of accurately measuring them. The computer program I described would simply optimize a land rent map to most closely match the available transaction and private professional appraisal data.

 

Well it's the only thing you are talking about taxing.

It's a tax on the citizen who has to pay it. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to tax land. And under the constitution any direct tax on the citizens must be equal apportioned to each state. Also each state has it's own rules and regulations as to property assessments and exemptions and I doubt they are all going to agree on some common form.

It is determined by the two parties agreeing to the rental agreement and those are private agreements.

Again those rental agreements are private documents and you have a HUGE constitutional hurdle.

 

Right, because it is the only thing that indisputably should be taxed as much as possible.

No it isn't. You simply made that up. It is a bald fabrication. The tax is both paid and borne by the landowner, who might be a citizen but might not, might reside in the taxing jurisdiction but might not, and might be a human person but might not. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.

Article 1, Section 8.

Wrong.

Irrelevant. The same is true of income tax, excise taxes, etc.

No it isn't. What two people agree to is price not value.

What on earth difference do you think you feel you might erroneously imagine that could make? The contents of real estate rental agreements are highly regulated almost everywhere in the USA.

No I don't. The USA does.

 

Why and what makes it indisputable. Our country was founded on the basis that the government should not deny the citizens their private property especially by taxing them out of it. What not your income or consumption?

No I pay my property taxes no one else does it for me and didn't say you had to be a citizen to pay real property taxes, the owner no matter citizenship pays them.

Nope property taxes would be a direct which is prohibited.

Correct
"Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it reaches every subject,1 that it is exhaustive2 or that it embraces every conceivable power of taxation.3 "
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-1/ALDE_00001054/

Excise taxes are not direct taxes. It took a constitutional amendment to get an income tax due to the above.

It is based on the value to each.

Those are private documents of the landlord the federal government can't just demand them. And you do realize that a rental agreement between a renter and and landlord is not interstate commerce it is intrastate commerce. The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce, intrastate is reserved for the states.

No YOU do you are the one that wants to make radical changes to the Constitution changes which you will never get the 3/4 of the states to pass giving up their taxing authority.

 

The fact that land's unimproved rental value comes from the community, not the owner, and is therefore indisputably rightfully owned by the community, not the owner. The entire unimproved rental value of land is a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.

That's just baldly false. The Articles of Confederation made a tax on land value the ONLY tax to fund the federal government. The Articles were replaced by the Constitution because rich, greedy, evil landowners threatened to start and finance a civil war if the government tried to collect that tax.

Because those are not related to either ability to pay or benefits received, the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy.

But you pay them whether you are a citizen of the jurisdiction where you own the property or not, proving me right and you wrong.

Yes you did. You said it was a tax on the citizens. That claim was just baldly false. You made it up because you knew you had to fabricate some sort of disingenuous smokescreen to prevent readers from understanding the indisputable justice of land taxation.

Correct. And if no land in the land-taxing jurisdiction is owned by any citizen, then no citizen would pay any of it, proving me objectively right and you objectively wrong, as usual.

No it isn't. Watch:

See? They need only be apportioned by population. Not prohibited in the least. And not apportioned equally by state, either. You simply made that up, too.

Irrelevant. They are still levied by both the federal and state governments, contrary to your false claims.

No it didn't. It only took a constitutional amendment to enable an income tax that included investment income without having to be apportioned among the states by population.

<yawn> That is your inevitable equivocation fallacy. Utility is not value.

What a pathetic attempt to deflect. The federal government doesn't need the documents themselves, only the information on them. Nothing stops the federal government from requiring that certain economic information be reported, any more than employment contracts being "private documents" prevents the federal government from collecting data on them.

<yawn> Can the federal government collect information on intrastate employment contracts? Yes or no?

You are trying to divert attention from the facts again. A tax on land has nothing to do with regulating intrastate commerce.

Garbage. I'm not even American. It's no skin off my nose if the USA prefers an unjust and economically destructive tax regime to a just and economically efficient one. I am just telling you how to cure the disease. It's your choice if you want to stay sick.

Another strawman fallacy. It has nothing to do with the states' taxing authority, any more than the federal income tax does.

 

No the value of the land and rental value is the owners and it comes from the free market. You have no right to it at all.

The Articles of Confederation were repealed they are no longer in effect. The Constitution is and I explained why there can be no direct taxation and even pointed out the your attempt to refute that by noted the income taxed fails because it took an amendment to the Constitution to get one because it is a direct tax.

Of course they are my income tax is base on my ability to pay because of the income. The benefits I receive are up to legislation. Sound taxation policy is what rate produces the highest income with the least interference with the free market and peoples ability to engage in their private matters, the liberty and freedom to act in their own self interest.

I pay them because I own the property. I pay sales in states where I am not a citizen. I pay excise tax where I am not a citizen. It's the property being taxed and as the owner I pay it.

What's your beef here you like to talk in these esoteric terms I bet you read some article on rents and how we the people should demand something have no ownership of blah blah blah. Is there some point to it, something practicle?

Ok that's enough I have no time nor patience for this...........go play in your sandbox with someone else.

 

Only because he is legally entitled to steal it from the community that creates it.

No it doesn't. Such claims are false, absurd, and laughable. The free market does not exist and has never yet existed, and markets only measure value, they do not create it. The unimproved rental value of land is created only by the desirable public services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You might note the absence from that list of anything the landowner provides.

I most certainly do: my right to liberty was forcibly stripped from me to create it.

Thank you for admitting that your claim that the USA was founded on unconditional servitude to landowners was false.

But your claim was objectively false, as I already proved to you. Direct taxes can be levied by the federal government under the Constitution. Your claim to the contrary is just flat false.

No, that claim is also false, as I already proved to you. There were income taxes before the 1913 income tax that did not require any constitutional amendment and were upheld by the USSC. The amendment was only needed to enable taxation of income from investments that was not apportioned among the states by population.

No, that's just objectively false, like all your other absurd and disingenuous nonsense. Income does not confer ability to pay, assets do, by definition. Only evil, despicable liars claim that a billionaire with no income has less ability to pay than a burger flipper making minimum wage, just as only evil, despicable liars claim that a service worker living in NYC and making $70K, of which he pays $40K in rent for a modest one-bedroom apartment, has more ability to pay than a retired drug dealer living in a paid-for home in a small town and collecting $50K in income on $2M in investments.

No they aren't. As a landowner, you automatically get the benefit of all desirable public services and infrastructure accessible from the locations you own.

No, that's just false. The rate is far less important than what is taxed and how. Every economics textbook that discusses taxation states that sound taxation policy can only be based on the "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay" principles, both of which are utterly flouted by income tax, but scrupulously followed by a tax on the unimproved rental value of land.

So you agree that your claim that a land tax is a tax on the citizens was just a bald fabrication on your part. Good.

I think justice is better than injustice. You prefer injustice to justice. Simple.

I have stated the relevant facts in clear, simple, grammatical English.

I.e., unlike yours, my opinion on the matter is a reasoned and informed one.

Because what we have no ownership of is our rights to liberty, which we rightly should have ownership of.

Only the cure for the massive, systematic, institutionalized, and wholly gratuitous injustice of landowner privilege that causes immense harm to both the citizenry and the economy.

You have to run away because you know that to engage with me, you have to read what I write, and you have already realized that will mean repeatedly reading the proof that your beliefs are false and evil.

 

I don't engage with those who cannot debate on a civil and polite level.

 

I've already told Bringiton to stop bringing up in-depth Land Value Tax arguments in other threads.
He doesn't seem to be very good at remaining on-topic.

 

Look who's talking! I am very civil and polite. What you mean is that you don't engage with people who conclusively refute, and decline to grant unearned respect to, your consistently fallacious, ill-informed, poorly reasoned and disingenuous "arguments."

 

The topic of this thread is a wealth tax. Facts about the different bases and effects of different types of taxes on different types of wealth are very much on topic, and cannot fail to improve the understanding of all who can find a willingness to know them.