Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by CourtJester, Oct 11, 2013.

  1. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How would that be so with landownership but not with land tenure under an LVT system? Are you saying that the LVT system does not give the land tax payer exclusive rights so long as they pay the taxes? Won't human beings be doing labor for the land occupier in an LVT system to the same degree as a land owner? Are you saying that landowners don't lose occupancy if they don't pay their property taxes?
    Are those historical and modern examples relevant to a large mature economy?
    I have always believed that the British raped their colonies, whether they were the landowners or simply the colonial owner of the country. Didn't the Irish landowners suffer the same rape of their country as did the non landowners? How does that example of the rape of Ireland apply to a modern mature economy?
     
  2. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you're a girl, then you wear panties.
    John wears panties.
    Therefore John is a girl.

    If X, then Y.
    Y.
    Therefore, X.

    Find evidence of Roy or I affirming the consequent as an argument. Clocks be tickin', dnsmith.
     
  3. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, since I am not insulting you or Roy you have no choice as to whether I give you specific examples of your fallacies except that:

    People own land People own slaves, Therefore owning land is equivalent to owning slaves. ​

    Your fallacy is suggesting that there is some kind of comparison between owning land and owning slaves. Your second fallacy is claiming that landowners paying property tax is somehow depriving anyone of their human rights as everyone has the right to buy land.

    Effectively you are saying:

    Land is expensive. Some people can't afford to buy land. Therefore those who are not landowners are slaves to the landowner.​

    That is fallacious thinking because there are many rich people who CHOOSE not to own land, rather they rent expensive suites in luxury apartment buildings. And under LVT single tax systems (single tax being the only way LVT can be useful even in an immature economy) high earners who do not own land do not pay taxes.

    What I will concede is, some people believe they are equivalent to slaves because they are not landowners, but in reality people believe they are treated like slaves because they are not wealthy.
     
  4. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a logical fallacy: Therefore John is a girl. If all girls wear panties, Joan is a girl, therefore Joan wears panties is the logical conclusion. Simply because John wears panties just like girls do does not make him a girl.

    If X does Y and Z does Y does not make Z=Y

    Land is expensive. Some people can't afford to buy land. Therefore those who are not landowners the equivalent of slaves to the landowner. That is a logical fallacy because there is nothing in the assertion which addresses who slaves are.

    The way to make your conclusion logically correct would be:

    Everyone who does not own land are slaves. John does not own land. Therefore John is a slave.
     
  5. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Let's just ignore that I specifically said "without reciprocation" and the fact I have many times before said that it violates people's natural rights. Perhaps a lesson in reading comprehension is required?

    You go, boy. Knock down that straw man.

    Straw man argument: I never claimed that owning a home makes your neighbor your property. I never even claimed that owning land makes your neighbor your property. I never claimed that owning land makes anyone your property.

    Provide a quote of me making that claim. Here is my prediction: You won't. If you provide a quote, you'll be making yourself look silly by failure to read and comprehend what's written.​
     
  6. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you believe that landowning violates people's rights, it would naturally follow that you would have to believe that any kind of land tenure system also violates people's rights. That is because land tenure gives the occupier exclusive rights to the property under the LVT tax system.
    I just knocked down your straw man.
    When you conclude that owning land takes away people's human rights and makes non-owners the equivalent of slaves it logically follows that owning land makes some people slaves of someone because there are landowners.

    It is the same thing as your not recognizing that saying an individual has made a bald faced lie comment, is tantamount to calling him a liar.

    And it also the same thing as claiming that a landowner did not fund the infrastructure with his property taxes. Or that in the US no people were ever required to foot the entire bill for paving their side of the street which is adjacent to their land.
     
  7. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Slavery is making a person your property. If owning a home, building and land, does not make anyone your property, home ownership in no way makes them your slave.


     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, pointing out your non sequiturs is not a fallacy.
     
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but you don't have a natural right to my land. unless you think I also have a natural right to your house or car?
     
  10. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He doesn't even believe anyone has the right to land in an LVT situation either. I have asked him directly many times if a non occupying person has rights to land in an LVT situation in which the occupier has kept up his taxes. He won't answer because it shoots his whole case out of the water.
     
  11. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's not an argument either of us ever made. Neither of us ever said that because both land and slaves are owned that the two therefore are equivalent.

    You do realize what that means when you claim we said something we didn't say, right? I won't hold my breath for a quote.

    You clearly don't know what logical fallacies are and how they work. You googled something and you haven't understood it.

    Again, that's not an argument either of us ever made. Neither of us said that because land is expensive non landowners are slaves to landowners.

    I won't hold my breath for quote.

    Best of all, even if we did make that argument, that's not even an example of affirming the consequent. :roflol: You clearly don't know what you're doing.

    Now that's a non sequitur from what you just wrote. It doesn't follow whatsoever.

    The LVT only being useful as a single tax is just your wrong opinion. In economics, land encompasses all natural resources, including even the electromagnetic spectrum. Any modern geoist will agree that the rents of those should be taxed as well as the rent of land. You essentially eliminate most of the ways the rich get rich without contributing in the first place. That's not even the purpose of it though. The purpose is justice and economic efficiency. Rewarding production over rent seeking. Also, the rich buy land in the most expensive locations now and have businesses in the most expensive locations now. There is no reason they wouldn't do so under the LVT with reduced purchase prices (but increased holding cost). Our proposal will eliminate the problem of the rich extracting rents from the economy while cruising around in their expensive yachts.

    That's a really weird sentence both in context and in meaning.
     
  12. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *virtual high five*

    Finally something from you that makes sense! (However, just because it's the logical conclusion from the premise doesn't mean the premise is correct, obviously.)

    Again, neither of us made that argument. Neither of us ever said that because people can't afford land that therefore non landowners are equivalent to slaves.

    I may as well start counting sheep until you find a quote. :bored:

    And, again, even we did make that argument, that's not affirming the consequent.

    That's the logical conclusion of the premise. However, I never stated that as a premise. I'm not sure what you're point is.

    slave: "a person held in servitude as the chattel of another". Clearly, the landless aren't property. That's never been a premise.


    Man, I thought you earned the virtual high five I gave you. If I could retract it, I would. :hmm:
     
  13. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Any system of exclusive land tenure, which IMO is a necessity is any modern economy, violates people's natural rights.

    Also, post #461:

    "The idea is that people have a natural right to access all of the earth and use its natural resources. Thus exclusive land tenure (including exclusive rights to natural resources) necessarily violates people's natural rights."

    I openly admitted that because it's rather obvious. So I'm not exactly sure why you think you have some kind of a GOTCHA moment???

    :roflol: What straw man? What are you talking about? A straw man argument is when you change your opponents argument so that you can refute the changed argument (the straw man) and pretend to have refuted the actual argument. There was clearly nothing like that in what you just replied to. And even if there was, why would YOU be knocking down my straw man of Taxpayer's argument???????? :roflol:

    So much gold in this goldmine. :clapping:

    Natural rights, more specifically.

    Like I said before, that depends on other factors (regulations, etc. etc. etc.) which may alleviate it. If there is no alleviation, then yes, the two will practically be very, very much alike, except for the part of them actually being legal property.

    That's an inaccurate statement.

    Does not follow.

    Does not follow.
     
  14. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me know when you're done pretending things were said that weren't said. Let me know when you're done with the blatant propaganda of shifting the debate to "home" or "building" when the issue is land. :bored:
     
  15. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, it's time to put up. Quote the "non sequitur". Demonstrate that in the argument the conclusion does not follow from its premise.
     
  16. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (^Talking about non sequiturs...)

    Well, first, you'd have to define natural rights. Unless of course you believe that natural rights and legal rights are identical. Honest question, do you believe that all rights are legal rights?
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm a land owner but I'm not a rent seeker. How come?
     
  18. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course I do, stop pretending I don't. Exclusive land tenure necessarily violates people's natural rights to use the land.

    No, you haven't asked specifically this "many times". And when you did, I answered.

    Yes, he has a natural right to it.

    No, it doesn't shoot my whole case out of the water. I've answered too. Exclusive land tenure violates people's natural rights in any case. The point is, it's a necessity in our economy. LVT makes it more just, efficient, and prevents it from being a rent seeking privilege: a free ride for landowners off the backs of others. (depending on land value, etc. even most landowners are net victims, it's mostly the filthy rich ones who benefit or the ones whose existence is financed mostly by land rent)

    Why do you pretend I haven't already addressed this? Why do you pretend I haven't written content to that effect plenty of times even in other threads in which you participated?
     
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you think I have a natural right to your car or house?
     
  20. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gotcha moment? No, but certainly a moment when it becomes puzzling why you think LVT is a good thing. Especially since you or Roy or both of you said LVT is not a single tax (the only real attraction LVT could be) and land use to prevent speculative hoarding is common to most locations, so why do you like it so much?
    All of your arguments have been refuted, what little argument there has been.
    It was not Taxpayers argument which was full of straw; it was yours. Once the fact that clearly LVT occupancy was as tenured as fee simple so long as the taxes are paid, and that LVT was not a single tax, and once it understood that land is regulated in most areas to prevent disuse, and that further, no man has a natural right to any space other than that in which he is currently standing, all you have are straw filled blusters. The rights that man has comes either from God or from other men. We CHOOSE to give others certain rights which we enumerate by law or compact (constitution) because we want equal treatment.
    Considering you have run out of argument you must be clapping at the comedy of your own lack of argument.
    Which don't exist! The only natural rights men have are the right not to be killed or enslaved, and those only came about in the more modern world. Man has equal rights under God, but no specific rights as to what he has or can get on earth.
    Ah, legal property. Sounds good to me. There is a reason for that. It is called security. Unless one has the legal right, tenure seems to be fleeting at the very best, and as far as I am concerned, since eminent domain can still remove those rights when the need be, it is the least security I would want.
    Now you are learning. Calling someone a liar by simply saying he made a bald faced claim is not acceptable.
    If fact both statements follow very well. Property taxes paid by landowners are what funds the infrastructure and fuel taxes fund highway construction. Other taxes fund other government function such as defense and education. In addition, it many parts of the country (in my home town in Louisiana for example) the land owner directly paid for the cost of paving half of the street adjacent to his property.

    So, now we have come to the point. LVT does not make land accessible except to the tax payer (tenure). Government has the ability to regulate land use for efficiency and LVT is not a single tax. So there is no valid attraction. End of story!
     
  21. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Be careful! Saying I am "pretending" is dangerously close to saying I made a falsehood, or effectively calling me a liar, and I will not tolerate that. If you believe I am in error, say so, but again, be careful how you word it.
    I have never seen you come right out and say that. Please link me to such an assertion on your part.
    No he doesn't. No one has a natural right to land or its use. It must be settled legally through purchase or common law and continuously used or it is forfeit.
    LVT makes nothing more just. Landowners never get a free ride. They pay taxes on their land. Owning land and charging rent is an acceptable business. Though some people do get rich (like a farmer whose land is in the way of a developing urban center) it does not make it immoral or unreasonable.
    Be careful! Trying to talk around the words does not change the effect. In addition, as I said above, I have never read your concession. Please link it.
     
  22. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The car and the house were created by human labor. So, no, I don't have a natural right to them.
     
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So was the improved value of the land through taxation for infrastructure, so no, you don't have a natural right to my land.
     
  24. Armor For Sleep

    Armor For Sleep New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's analyze what you essentially just argued:

    P1: There is no natural right to a house or a car because they're products of human labor.
    P2: The value of land is a product of human labor.
    C: Therefore there is no natural right to land.

    The value of land is not land. So, that's a clear non sequitur.
     
  25. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here's an article which shows an interesting perspective on the issue of the wealthy paying taxes.

    http://www.balancedpolitics.org/taxing_rich.htm
     

Share This Page