Reagan increased the debt 170%. Bush increased the debt 101%. Clinton increased the debt 39%. Obama increased the debt 89%. Trump is track to beat Obama ... You were saying ...?
You don't have to dodge so carelessly. It just makes you look less. Its a simple question. You know very little economics. You don't feel that matters. I've just asked if you care about the right wingers who bothered with economics. Do you like their output or are you consistent in your rejection of economics?
That's meaningless because most households, especially the affluent ones who have any money to pay taxes with, own land. You could equally say that government revenue comes even more from car owners, or even more than that, from TV owners. That doesn't mean ownership of cars or TVs is taxed, just that almost all households own cars and TVs. The total fraction of public spending on desirable services and infrastructure that make land more valuable that is actually paid for with taxes on land is in the low double-digit percentages. All the rest is a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners paid for by other taxpayers.
Nonsense. In a capitalist system, wages are determined by the productivity of labor on marginal land, and have nothing to do with population (Google "Law of Rent"). Wages have obviously risen rapidly over the last 200y, even as population has also soared, and birth rates declined rapidly even while wages were rising rapidly. Malthus was talking through his hat because he didn't understand economics.
Because man must hunt for his meal, nature must be oppressing him. If we want to really get into the semantics, anarchists would be communists, not socialists Ever heard of property taxes? They're the primary revenue source for municipalities, special districts, counties, and state governments. Do schools, libraries, emergency services, and public infrastructure not make land valuable? My grandfather, father, and I all had the same profession, and I learned how to do things the way they did them. Just within my profession productivity has drastically increased to the point that I can't even fathom how any work was ever accomplished back when grandpa was doing it. Productivity has increased to such a point that I'm able to do at least 200 times the work my grandfather did within my profession, and at least 50 times the work he did at home(in regards to cottage industry, cooking, cleaning, and maintenance). We've hit a point where mankind has made population growth irrelevant, and it only continues due to heavy government subsidy to promote a dying economic model based upon consumption.
Semantics? The yell of the lazy. You're talking guff. Plenty of anarchists who aren't Marxists (and also ironically Thatcherism ultimately agreed with the autonomists)
Practice and theory are very different things. There's the economic theory of perfect communism and perfect capitalism, and then there's the theory in practice. The belief that anarcho-communism could ever come to fruition without an authoritarian government is laughable.
No, they are not: "Property taxes are a very small source of revenue for states, in part because states typically tax personal property but not real property. State governments collected $16 billion in revenue from property taxes in 2016 or 1 percent of state general revenue. In contrast, property taxes were one of the largest sources of revenue for local governments. Local governments collected $487 billion in property taxes or 30 percent of local government general revenue." https://www.urban.org/policy-center.../state-and-local-backgrounders/property-taxes So property taxes are a derisory revenue source for states, which spend far more on the services and infrastructure that make land valuable than local governments do, and even for local governments, more than 2/3 of tax revenue is taken from non-property sources, and is therefore a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH. See above. Very little of their cost is covered by property taxes in most states. THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH. The heavily subsidized but dying economic model is not the one based on consumption, it's the one based on rent seeking. That's why astronomical increases in productivity are not accompanied by commensurate increases in wages or real standard of living.
Stating the obvious doesn't help you. This is utter drivel. Communism isn't utopian. It is a perceived understanding of evolutionary economics. Your opinion is nothing. You've got a cobblers understanding of communism and you've used that to make up crap about anarchism.
Your own link states that property taxes are the primary revenue source for state and local governments, and you obviously don't know how government works. Most public infrastructure is financed via bonds, bonds which are repaid based upon specific levies on real property. My understanding of communism is from being constantly reminded my entire life just how narrowly I avoided first hand experience.
No, it most certainly does not, and I provided the quotes and url to prove it. You did not provide any quote or url for your false claim, just your incorrect assertion. I know incomparably more about it than you. <yawn> Another false assertion with no evidence or supporting quote. What a surprise. Quote? Supporting evidence? Of course not.
No animal does well once the essentials are provided. It's the end of the line, in fact. What keeps us alive is the struggle to stay alive .. counter intuitive as that may seem.
Actually it isn't inherently authoritarian. It isn't inherently anything other than non-profit collectivism. The reason Progs like to insist it's 'democratic' is because they dream in the colours of authoritarianism. They are - in fact - authoritarian capitalists.
Which only works as a moral thing, when the community itself is moral. Obviously. You cannot demand 'morality' from one, and not the other.
What nonsense. Domesticated animals far outlive and out-reproduce their wild counterparts. No, that's just nonsense.
