Leftists wake up, lower taxes equal more revenue

Jesus. You're going to be one piece of work. Read up on tax incidence and we can have a conversation like adults here, not in your fantasy world. You'll have some time to think things over until tomorrow. I hope you are worthy of leaving the kiddie table by then. My times up here for today.

 

Rather than waste more money for government programs, the government should instead, classify all US citizens as "stock holders" in the Corporation of the United States. All stock holders will receive a yearly dividend of at least $3300, just before Thanksgiving each year, sent to a US bank account for each SS no. account. Each individual may then access this once/year deposit by presenting ID, SS card, and fingerprint scan, verifying the person. This is a 1 Trillion/year expense, which is paid for by an increase to 50% on the upper 10% of the wealthiest citizens, and 50% on Capital gains instead of 15% currently, and by reduction of wasteful fraudulent government programs and "earmarks" set aside for personal friends of US Congressmen.

By sending money directly back to ALL the people, many of whom are the 40 million living in poverty, some fraudulent government programs can be reduce or eliminated, as the system of redistribution, recycling, will be streamlined, eliminating the "middleman" fraudsters.

By sending a $3300 to EVERY US citizen "stock holder", regardless of their economic status, then everyone will theoretically directly benefit from the yearly dividend without class being a factor.

$3300 may seem only a trifle, but to the poor, and the homeless, having a steady yearly income of $3300/year irrespective of whether they were "productive citizens" or not, would benefit them tremendously. And an extra $3300 around Thanksgiving would be quite a nice bonus for low income and middle income persons and certainly a stimulus for the consumer economy at this time of year.

This dividend idea could be extended to include the Petroleum industry, such that citizens receive a dividend for Oil industry profits. Perhaps Military Industrial profits also, except we might need to be careful since that might encourage more voter support for increasing conventional warfare around the world.

 

I'm well aware of what tax incidence is. Which is what I was attempting to point out to you. While you are attempting to lay the tax burden upon the landowner that's not who is going to take the brunt of the tax increase. The tax incidence will actually fall upon the renters who will either be forced to pay the increase if they cannot pass it along (in the case of a homeowner) or pass those costs along to the consumer (in the case of a business).

 

This is just ridiculous. So you want capital gains to ACTUALLY be taxed at around 75%? What kind of retarded BS is that? Not to mention why in the hell should someone who doesn't work at the company get paid to sit on their ass? That's moronic.

This idea would destroy the economy in a very short period of time.

 

Why would a once a year stimulus be more effective than a stimulus that could be achieved on an at-will basis by Individuals, self-selecting.

 

You really don't understand anything about economics do you. This stuff has been known for over 200 years, but you know nothing about it … amazing. Under the land value tax the government collects the land rent, period. If people will offer more, then the government will raise the tax and will collect more. So, contrary to your claim, the landowner can't capture any unearned wealth. What is so hard to understand about that?

I will say this very slowly so that you can understand it: … if … the … landowner … successfully ... raises … his … rent … then … the … government … will … raise … the … tax … by … the … same … amount.

The rent of land can only be pushed so high before the tenants abandon the land, and the government collects all the rent just short of that point. So no matter what, the government is not going to allow the landowner to collect that unearned rent. That is why so many parasitic landowners hate the idea of land value taxation -- they cannot pass the cost of the tax to anyone else. And that is why the land value tax does not, and cannot raise consumer prices or lower the wages of work, because the tax only collects what the landowner is already taking in rent, the maximum that the market will bear.

 

That's ludicrous. The tax on the land is based upon the value. So the only way the government can raise the tax on the land is to increase the appraisal value of that land. In which case, nobody will purchase the land even if it does go up for sale (meaning the landowner will continue to own it) because it's artificially overpriced to jack up the tax rate on the landowner.

Unless, of course, you're asserting that the government should have unilateral authority to increase tax rates on any individual landowner that they determine to be overcharging their renters.

If that's your argument then the LVT tax idea that you're proposing is even more retarded than I thought.

 

No, that is not how it works. Under land value taxation the government just accepts whatever the market comes in and offers. Whoever comes into the land administration office and offers the most in taxation receives secure tenure of the land. Therefore land can never be abandoned because of high taxation, because the tax can never be more than what someone has come in and offered in taxation for secure tenure. As I tried to explain a few posts ago, the appraiser is only there to give an approximation, if the market doesn't like his approximation, then they can pay whatever they want, and so long as nobody else offers more then they continue to maintain ownership.

No, again. The government doesn't have unilateral authority to increase tax rates, the market does. If someone comes into the land administration office and offers to pay a higher rate of taxation for secure tenure of the land, then the government must increase the rate of taxation to match that offer. So, suppose that you have an idea to build a mechanic shop on the corner of Forth and Main street, which is currently just an empty lot. Suppose the the taxes on the lot are currently $100 a year. You can go into the land administration office and offer to pay $110 a year in taxes. The land administration office will then raise the taxes on that land to match your offer. If the current owner cannot afford to pay $110 per year in taxes for the land, then he will likely sell that land to you.

If you really want the land, you can keep going into the land administration office and upping your offer, till the taxes get high enough that the current owner does sell, then you can buy the land cheap and build your mechanic shop – and since the land value tax replaces other taxes, you can operate your mechanic shop without paying any other taxes. Note that because you offered so much in taxation, more than the previous owner could afford to pay, you were able to buy the land very cheaply, because the previous owner NEEDED to sell the land, because he could not afford to match your offer to the land administration office.

 

They get taxed (in theory) on NET income - this after taxes and credits. But many corporations have not paid a cent in taxes due to corporate welfare. Do as I said before - end all tax shelters and end the corporate state. That's when society is going to benefit the most.

 

LoL What a ridiculous system. So what stops a really rich person from coming in and jacking up the tax rates on an entire community until it's unreasonable and impossible for them to pay and then booting their asses out on the street?

Or what stops me if I have a lot of money and a neighbor that pisses me off to offer rates so high he's not able to afford his taxes? Or maybe I'm a rich white guy or a community of somewhat rich white people and we don't like black people. What stops us from jacking the rates up of any black person that comes into the neighborhood? I suppose that's an easy way to get rid of all the minorities in the neighborhood.

And what happens if I come to the government and offer to pay a tax rate of 60% to my neighbors 15% that he was paying beforehand. The government gladly says that's awesome and jacks up the tax rate on my neighbor. He obviously can't afford to pay the 60% so he's got to either look to sell his land or look to default to the government. What happens if he's got to the point where he's actively trying to sell his land or is close to default and I just change my mind?

 

We have taxes that are low enough for the wealthiest to enjoy record profits; how is that working out for us now?

 

I'm with you. I hate socialism. Corporate welfare is a socialist construct. We should go back to the capitalist structure where they get no welfare.

 

Well when you have such an uncertain and business-loathing administration as we have in power right now, the corporations are not likely to expand or hire. They never know what kind of screwed up anti-business policy is going to come out next. They consistently hear class warfare rhetoric and hear themselves being demonized by the administration.

It's not a secret. They've asked dozens and dozens of CEO's why they're not expanding or hiring. Their answer almost ALWAYS is uncertainty coming out of the government.

 

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost through central forms of planning, income transfers, and an official Mint at our disposal. Investing in the general welfare should require a positive multiplier effect on our political-economy. Solving for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding sufficient fortitude to subscribe to the theory of demand and supply and an assumption of full employment of resources in any given market as a benchmark Standard is a promotion of the general welfare.

 

Lowering taxes may help people in their daily lives, but the things that those taxes pay for would have to be cut to compensate. This is the problem with tax cuts. If you do not have alternative revenue for the government, you end up with less money for schools, police, and other important things.

This is why we need to focus on creating alternative sources of revenue.

We could legalize and tax marijuana

We could sell naming rights to certain streets to private companies. How does driving down Burger King Drive sound?

We could charge room and board to prisoners and require them to pay for their time in prison.

We could decriminalize illegal drugs, and charge fines for people who possess them in public and sell them illegally instead of sending them to prison, which costs us money. And let people use them in their own homes, and only make it a crime to have them in public.

Allow religious gatherings on public land, if they groups running them pay for permits.





There are several ways we can raise money without higher income tax. The problem is that none of the politicians who are calling for the lower taxes want to push for them, they are simply trying to kiss the peoples' asses by saying they will cut taxes, and then blame it on the other side when they have to cut school funding and other things to compensate, or borrow money from China, adding to the debt.

 

I agree that our War on Drugs is Part of the beast that should be starved.

 

Rather than throwing out useless rebuttals, how about you actually post some evidence.

Income inequality decreased from 1940s all the way through the 1970s due to HIGHER TAX RATES on the rich. Show me some evidence to prove otherwise.

 

I'm all for taxing the rich, but any flat tax code reduces the role of incentives.

 

It is pretty simple. Raise taxes on the rich closer to where they used to be. Inequality solved. The rich won't like it.. but they aren't going anywhere. There is no where to go.

 

General taxes are generally considered less taxatious than direct forms of taxation. Why not resort to general forms of taxation on artificial persons (Firms) for funding unemployment compensation, with the public sector making up for any short falls?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but those artificial persons are 100% responsible for unemployment compensation anyway.

 

You do understand that those tax increases came with an incredibly high amount of tax shelters and loopholes which meant the richest paid very little if any of those taxes.

That's why when the taxes were raised they had to close those tax shelters and loopholes. You cannot have both... in either direction. You cannot have high taxes without tax shelters and loopholes. They'll tell you to go jump off a cliff and put their money elsewhere and you won't get a dime of tax money.

 

Like the tax flight myth?

Right...

 

There is nothing mystical about it. It is basic logic. Why would you keep money in a place that is going to text you at 50% when you can just as easily put it somewhere where it will be text at 10%? The only thing that I can come up with for why anyone would not do this is because they're retarded.

 

I believe we merely need wartime tax rates even for a War on Drugs.