Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Say there is a piece of land that for whatever reason, several people want to build a house on. How would it be decided who gets to use the land? Would the people put in bids for the land, or have an auction? Of course, the bids/auction would be held by society/government and the bids would be how much each person would be willing to pay to society/government per year for the use of the land.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Whoever pays the community the most compensation for excluding everyone else from it.
    There are lots of ways to find prices, lots of possible mechanisms for repaying the subsidy to location owners. Computerized valuations would be accurate enough.
    Sounds reasonable. The land administration office would also probably offer a kind of insurance to reassure users they wouldn't be dispossessed by a higher bid after investing in fixed improvements.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  3. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you expressed in an earlier post that the yearly payment would most likely be less than the property tax that people pay now?
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That would only be the case in places like Detroit where land value is very low relative to improvement value. In most places, the location subsidy repayment (LSR) would be more than current property taxes; but most people would still be better off because they would only be paying for government once instead of twice, as they do now.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The community of those whom the landowner forcibly strips of their rights to liberty.
     
  6. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My apologies if you explained this earlier, but are you saying that the "LSR" would take the place of the federal income tax?
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ideally, but that depends on the jurisdiction. LSR is more appropriate for junior governments because land can't move to a lower-tax jurisdiction. IMO the US federal government should be a lot smaller, and should not tax personal income and most of the other things it currently taxes. It should get its revenue from issuance of money (private banksters' privilege of issuing money should be rescinded) and Pigovian taxes on things that harm society, like junk food, recreational drugs, gambling and firearms.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    To clarify, that earlier post stated that it would cost far less -- almost nothing -- to BUY the land, not that LSR would necessarily be less than the current property taxes.
     
  9. GChairman

    GChairman Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2019
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Every time I read stuff like this, the first thing that comes to mind is someone is envious
    Im sorry but its silly to even suggest taxing people who "earns" over as you put it 5 million dollars should be taxed at 99%

    Why is it that you people hate business people?

    You dont say nothing when A list Hollywood stars earns an insane amount of money , why is it that you didn't protest George Clooney earning 238 Million dollars in 2018?

    What about soccer's Lionel Messi, earning over a 111 million dollars, 84 million in salary alone?

    What about NFL's Russell Wilson QB of the SeaHawks 35 million dollars in salary not including a 65 million dollar bonus

    What about NHL Austin Matthews of the Toronto Maple leafs earning 15.9 million a years starting in oct 2019

    What about NBA's Steph Curry of the Golden State Warrior earning 37,457,154

    What about baseball's Stephen Strasburg. 2019 Salary: $38.3 million

    Shall we talk about our favorite musicians ? depending on your genre of music you fancy

    Taylor Swift earning over 100 million dollars

    even country star Luke Bryan earning over 42 million dollars in 2019


    so where is the outrage?
     
  10. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now I am confused. "BUYing" the land implies that a person would "own" the land. I thought the system would do away with "ownership" and that people would only be able to use a piece of land in return for their yearly payment, sort of like a lease.

    Can I assume that you are speaking of implementing this program in the current United States? Or are we just talking theory?
     
    Longshot likes this.
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, they would only buy the exclusive tenure right (presumably along with existing fixed improvements). The selling price would typically be close to the pre-paid LSR.
    Right. It's just a legal form like in HK, where people can only lease land, but they also buy and sell the leases. HK unfortunately uses an obsolete system of lease sales that doesn't recover very much of the location subsidy, so the leases are very expensive.
    I'm not American, so my thinking is not confined American public policy parameters. I'm not just talking theory: there are actually countries in the world other than the United States where innovative public policy ideas can be implemented in practice. Some people say that in the USA there is a Constitutional barrier to a federal LSR system, but that barrier would not stop individual states, cities or counties from using it.
     
  12. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So do you see any conceivable way to implement this in a society that has for centuries allowed private ownership of property?

    For example, take a person who bought an acre of land 40 years ago, built her own house, planted her own trees, raised her kids there, paid her property taxes, developed great relationships with her neighbors, followed all the rules, and essentially had her hopes and dreams and lots of equity tied up in that property...

    Does the government show up and say "Sorry, you're out of here, unless you are the highest bidder"? Some rich dude comes in and outbids her and she becomes homeless overnight? With the requisite loss of equity?

    Or how about Ford Motor Company who has invested billions in factories and showrooms across the country... "I'm from the government, sorry, but you are required to abandon all of this unless you are the highest bidder" essentially forcing the company to lease their own stuff that they rightfully paid for under the old rules of society? And that is if they are the high bidder. What if
    Chevy outbids them?

    Millions of pensions and 401s and everything else would be devastated. Just not seeing how this could work in a country that was established with private property rights.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  13. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So who should own the land?
     
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So who should own the land?
     
  15. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So who do you think should steal everyone's right to liberty?
     
  16. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So he pays every member of the community? Which community, btw?
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The community of those whose rights the sovereign authority over that location secures and reconciles, and whom it is accountable to.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why are you pretending that the only alternative to you stealing everyone's rights to liberty is for someone else to steal them? Why are you pretending that everyone's rights to liberty have to be stolen?
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why are you pretending that land has to be owned?
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why are you pretending that land can't exist unless someone owns it?
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    First, by refusing to let anyone fallaciously substitute "property" for "land." Remember, slaves were also property for millennia before they were freed.
    So, much as people once bought slaves and counted on owning them....
    <sigh> Obviously not. There would be a grace period, as there is now in cases of property tax arrears, and she would still own the improvements and be able to sell them or get their market value in compensation. She would also get back the money she paid for the land.

    Are you perhaps unaware of the fact that long-term tenants routinely find themselves in much the same position under the current system? Why do you not feel their losses and "homelessness" under the current unjust system are of any concern, but only the prospective losses and "homelessness" suffered by landowners under a just system???
    Just as people had "rightfully" paid for slaves under the old rules...
    Obviously all those parcels would be held separately. For some reason, you seem to think companies are not aware of efficiency concerns and how to maximize the returns on their real estate investments. Don't you think they are already looking for ways to economize and sell off land they are not using effectively?
    They are already being devastated by Wall Street crooks. The fact that people have become financially dependent on injustice is not a reason to maintain it. The evil count on that to get their victims to take their side against justice.
    Private property rights would still be respected. Just not the privilege of owning other people's rights to liberty.
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So like several million checks?
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you pretending I said something so stupid.

    The question is: Who can prevent others from using any particular piece of land. Who would you like to be able to do so?
     
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,197
    Likes Received:
    2,394
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you proposing that the state own other people's right to liberty?
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, I'm proposing that the state -- the only agency competent to do so -- ensure just compensation is both made and received when people's rights to liberty are abrogated by exclusive land tenure.
     

Share This Page