We need to replace all taxes with a land value tax

1) So, just what did I miss? The conversation started with a theory on the rate for the Fair Tax to balance the budget and then a switch to a naive implication that some method of balanced budget would fix all the ills.

2) How is a balanced budget somehow related to the topic of the thread?

3) No, taxation is the government robbing the people of the fruits of their labors, it is slavery, pure and simple regardless of whether the methodology is a claim directly against income or indirectly via increase in costs be they the "Fair Tax" or inflation.

4) The federal government has no authority to tax individuals directly, perhaps that is why we don't agree on the 16th Amendment. I happen to agree with the IRS and the decisions of the supreme Court in regards to the interpretation of this amendment. The only issue I have with those mystical beings in black robes is the actually validity of the amendment being ratified.

5) Bull.

Further astray, don't think so. Refusal to connect the dots and accept what is being told, more like it.

A statement in which I totally agree, we don't agree on anything.

 

First, I don't have problems especially with comprehension, I leave that all to people like yourself. When there is an issue with the servants, I resolve them, quite severely.

Second, I comprehend taxes to a level you could never understand. I have no problem taking on the IRS in court, in fact our last little outing was even in their own little kangaroo court, the IRS tax court.

To one that somehow thinks there could ever be anything even near a "Fair" tax to say another has a problem with comprehension, ridiculous. And further, to claim that a national sales tax to the extent of the "Fair Tax" would be good for anyone is purely ludicrous. That is one that hasn't a clue about taxation.

Lastly, based on somehow thinking that robbing the poor and middle class on an even larger scale than what exists presently would be the sign of one little understanding either taxation nor how it works at all. You probably think the income tax is used to support the government.

 

What in the world are you ranting on about? I didn't name it the "Fair Tax." THAT is what it is called . . . the Fair Tax. Don't like it? Take it up with someone else. Do you realize how ridiculous this is? Are you 5 years old or something?

You really don't seem to have much comprehension at all. You have been asked questions and have failed to answer any of them in a reasonable or rational manner. As a matter of fact, you come across as an extremely irrational person. What in the hell does you taking the IRS to court have anything to do with this discussion? No one cares.

Now, I've asked you this question multiple times throughout this thread and you have yet to answer it, just how do you suggest the government function WITHOUT income from taxation? Explain please.

 

Well, like I said, you have no clue. Of course you didn't name it, that would imply that which you shall never have but then it is you that keeps on implying that it would be a "Fair" system of taxation. I do find it amusing that you must resort to the ad hominem.

Ah, such a pronouncement from one that seems to understand little about the whole subject matter other than the right to remain a slave. Of course there are questions but as you little understand the question, how can one expect one to even recognize the answer, much less understand it. As you so elegantly state, it is all but a rant. Irrationality is all subjective and when I consider the subject implying the claim, it does seem that way, doesn't it?

Taking the IRS to court, you haven't a clue about this either as you so state. But somehow you imply that you understand "Fair Tax". Really?

You asked, I answered but no matter how you search just can't seem to find much less be able to comprehend the answer.

 

Sure sounds like you have problems.





​

 

Really and I'm supposed to believe you have more to add than a quip? I'm going to lose sleep over this uninformed pronouncement.

 

Try some warm milk.




​

 

Ah, another myth much like your last pronouncement.

 

Mythical ... that many people have told you, that you have comprehension problems?




​

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Try again.

 

Only those that have shown little judgement or common sense on most of what they post. Doesn't really mean anything but their lack of comprehension on even the most minute things must less a complex topic. But I do find it amusing.

 

It never will answer the question in your mind. The answer stares you in the face but you still can't see.

 

Oh really? Well please enlighten me.

 

A land value tax does not increase the prices of goods at all. A $100 item would cost $100 when government is financed by land value taxation. Why support a sales tax that increases prices by 20% when you can fund government without increasing prices at all?

 

Well, not everyone owns land. Not to mention, the prices of rent and mortgages would rise with your proposal.

 

Let's face it. There isn't going to be a perfect system that pleases everyone. Every single method of taxation out there is going to make someone or some group unhappy.

 

Can't please all the people all the time!

 

What a horrible idea. The ability to pay taxes depends on income, not on amount of land someone owns. What would happen is that some very wealthy people who just happen to own relatively little land would have extremely low tax burden, while poorer people who happen to own sizable areas of land would have huge tax burdens, up to being unable to pay their taxes.

No, taxes need to be tied to earnings or spendings (income tax or VAT), that way the actual tax burden in relatively equal for everyone and depends directly on the ability of people to actually pay the tax. Those who have no money should pay nothing.

 

True. But government provided infrastructure and services allow those who do own land to charge higher rents than if those public goods were not available. If the landowners simply forwarded this additional rent they receive to the government, then government would have the funding necessary to pay for those provisions.

No. Land is fixed in supply so the normal supply/demand curve does not apply. Land value taxation does not increase the prices of anything, nor does it reduce wages or the profits of production. The only side effect of land value taxation is that land prices are substantially reduced. Land value taxation cannot be passed to tenants, producers or consumers. Removing all the current taxes on production and trade would make the markets more competitive, wages would rise and consumer prices would fall, boosting the reward to labor and capital by 20-30% at a minimum; funding government with land value taxation would leave those gains fully intact.

"The striking result is that a tax on rent will lead to no distortions or economic inefficiencies. Why not? Because a tax on pure economic rent does not change anyone's economic behavior. Demanders are unaffected because their price is unchanged. The behavior of suppliers is unaffected because the supply of land is fixed and cannot react. Hence, the economy operates after the tax exactly as it did before the tax—with no distortions or inefficiencies arising as a result of the land tax." — Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate in Economics (1970)

 

I don't see how those claims can be made. I'm quite sure that landlords would pass the extra costs onto their tenants. They already do this sometimes, right? I would rather be taxed at the point of purchase. Also, a lot of people might choose to rent instead of buying their own homes, so it could affect the housing market too.

 

That's another good point. Thanks.

I like the Fair Tax proposal because you control how much you're giving for taxes. Anyone who read the link I posted to the proposal can see that people who are low income/poverty level would get prebates from the government.

 

Land value proves the ability to pay the tax. Land Value taxation is a tax on the income (or potential income) that landowners can get for doing nothing. Land value taxation is always affordable because land value is the precise measure of the income potential that society is giving the landowner.

Here are nine (9) Nobel prize winning economists who advocate for land value taxation: http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates#toc1

 

The reason most taxes can be passed to producers and consumers is because they create scarcity; the more scarcity of a good the higher the price. Land is fixed in supply, so the land value tax cannot create scarcity, the price of things produced from land, and the price people are willing to pay for land, is therefore unchanged. Adam Smith explained this over two hundred years ago in his book 'The Wealth of Nations', it is an undisputed fact of economics.

 

Yes that is quite true. The only way a land value tax could be passed on to a renter would be if the tax was in excess of the return on capital.

Rent is determined by supply and demand. Like geofree mentioned, the land already exists. If it were a man-made form of capital, a tax would indeed affect the supply.

What a land value tax does do is decrease the price of the land. When people have to pay a tax on the land, it's value becomes worth less. I do want to emphasize here that I do not support a tax on all land, just a tax on an individual's land holdings above a certain amount, so the majority of the population would probably not have to pay any land value tax. Basically an individual deductible. Grandma could retire in her house without ever having to worry (unless of course she lived in a location where the cost of land was extremely high).

When we describe "land", of course, we mean that aspect of the a property that constitutes the land. The value of a property could be 40% land and 60% man-made improvements and structures, in which case it would be important to differentiate between the two.

 

Impossible!!!