View Poll Results: Do you support the Fair Tax?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    39 61.90%
  • no

    19 30.16%
  • other

    5 7.94%
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 100

Thread: The Fair Tax

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    No I'm saying it is already collected by the private landlord, all I'm saying is it go to the community instead.
    So you're saying the operator of a business has to pay a tax to the government.

    I'm opposed to all corporate taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    This is not a property tax so your argument is irrelevant.
    The discussion is property tax, so anything you're imagining outside of that is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Well you admit my point good. You can call society neighbours if you want.
    You didn't understand your point.

    PEOPLE incurs debts and liabilities to other PEOPLE. Society is the aggregation of people, like a breccia rock. Breccias are typically soft rock that makes for pretty decoration and crappy foundations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I meant the expense of increased rent and land values, land speculation, lower wages and returns on capital and such.
    You mean the expenses the owner incurs if he wishes to extract value from the property? Well, that's his business, not "society's".

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    But your point above is completely wrong, I'm not saying that improvements to land don't increase its value, I'm not arguing that be taxed, simply ground and site rent, but to say it is simply these that make a piece of land more expense is obviously false hence your argument fails. That would be like saying in our example above the piece of land were of the same price. One in Manhattan and one in Wyoming.
    Whatever you're trying to say, figure it out and then let us know. In the meantime, a land tax turns owners into tenants. As a descendant of Irishmen, I'm genetically opposed to turning owners into renters.

  2. #82
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    So you're saying the operator of a business has to pay a tax to the government.

    I'm opposed to all corporate taxes.
    No I'm saying the ground rent and site rent not produced by the owners should be collected by the local community and fill in for most other taxes.


    The discussion is property tax, so anything you're imagining outside of that is irrelevant.
    The thread is on fair tax. We are discussing the Land value tax which is not a property tax per se so it is you who is imagining things.



    You didn't understand your point.

    PEOPLE incurs debts and liabilities to other PEOPLE. Society is the aggregation of people, like a breccia rock. Breccias are typically soft rock that makes for pretty decoration and crappy foundations.
    Is this supposed to mean much?


    You mean the expenses the owner incurs if he wishes to extract value from the property? Well, that's his business, not "society's".
    Nope I did not mean that.


    Whatever you're trying to say, figure it out and then let us know. In the meantime, a land tax turns owners into tenants. As a descendant of Irishmen, I'm genetically opposed to turning owners into renters.
    This is not an argument. The collection is only on ground and site rent, it is only on part of land ownership, to try and equate it with tenancy is a fallacy and non-argument, although it seems to be all you have.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The thread is on fair tax. We are discussing the Land value tax which is not a property tax per se so it is you who is imagining things.
    Of course it's a property tax. This is the United States over here, where real men raise cows, not sheep, so there's no wool to pull over our eyes.

    You can call it a Fred Tax, and all that means is that it's a property tax.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Is this supposed to mean much?
    I'm hoping to wean you of socialist-speak and other forms of babble that lead one to make mistakes such as pretending that "society" has some special significance and maybe getting you to understand the real world around you.

    No one has a "debt" to society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Nope I did not mean that.
    Too bad, it's still the owner's problem, not "society's".

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    This is not an argument. The collection is only on ground and site rent, it is only on part of land ownership, to try and equate it with tenancy is a fallacy and non-argument, although it seems to be all you have.
    So if you only tax the hub caps, tires, rims, and axles of a car, it's not really a tax, its merely part of a car and hence only part of a tax and you can then call it a kitten if you want?

  4. #84
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Of course it's a property tax. This is the United States over here, where real men raise cows, not sheep, so there's no wool to pull over our eyes.

    You can call it a Fred Tax, and all that means is that it's a property tax.
    Not an argument.



    I'm hoping to wean you of socialist-speak and other forms of babble that lead one to make mistakes such as pretending that "society" has some special significance and maybe getting you to understand the real world around you.

    No one has a "debt" to society.



    Too bad, it's still the owner's problem, not "society's".
    What are you talking about?

    So if you only tax the hub caps, tires, rims, and axles of a car, it's not really a tax, its merely part of a car and hence only part of a tax and you can then call it a kitten if you want?
    Basically your advocating that the fruit's of my labour be taxed, what I produce be made to have an additional levy on it for the gov't so the demand is reduced and what I buy with the income I get from my labour and capital have an additional cost that I must pay to the state. What I'm advocating is that the site rent and ground rent an individual owner does not create be collected locally and other taxes reduced or removed and yet you have the cheek to pretend it is you who is defending ownership against socialism( I use the term defend in a loose way that ignores the lack of actual arguments from you.).

    Ownership to land currently and theoretically contains several parts. One of the parts today is collecting ground rent generated by nature and site rent generated by society, I only suggest this be collected and leave all the other parts of land ownership intact. By lessening the a fore mentioned problems of state-granted land tenure and lessening the need for taxes on labour and capital this tax is a boon and not an attack on private property including that in land.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Not an argument.
    Wasn't meant to be. It was a lesson. I don't argue with people who claim property taxes aren't property taxes because they're called something else but they tax property anyway.

    I don't use double talk. If you're taxing property, it's a property tax, no matter what you feel like pretending it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    What are you talking about?
    How the taxation of property reduces the sovereign citizen to the status of serf.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Basically your advocating that the fruit's of my labour be taxed, what I produce be made to have an additional levy on it for the gov't so the demand is reduced and what I buy with the income I get from my labour and capital have an additional cost that I must pay to the state. What I'm advocating is that the site rent and ground rent an individual owner does not create be collected locally and other taxes reduced or removed and yet you have the cheek to pretend it is you who is defending ownership against socialism( I use the term defend in a loose way that ignores the lack of actual arguments from you.).
    Do you own an orchard? Then no, you fruits shouldn't be taxed, since businesses should not be taxed, since the only thing a business tax does is hide the tax from the consumer paying the tax.

    The consumers should pay the taxes openly.

    "site rent" and "ground rent" are paid to the OWNER of the land. If the OWNER of the land is a private citizen, why should they have to pay these "non-taxes" as you claim they are, to someone else?

    You keep up with the psychobabble and I'll continue to point out that what you're really talking about is taxation and serfdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Ownership to land currently and theoretically contains several parts.
    It's ownership "OF" land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    One of the parts today is collecting ground rent
    You mean "tax".

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    generated by nature and site rent

    You mean "tax".

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    generated by society
    if "society" generated it, let "society" pay it.

    You mean "tax".

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I only suggest this be collected and leave all the other parts of land ownership intact.
    Can't. Be forcing the putative owner to pay rent, you've turned him into a tenant, and his status is reverted to that of lessor, not owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    By lessening the a fore mentioned problems of state-granted land tenure
    So you admit the state owns the land, not the lessor (ie "serf")

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    and lessening the need for taxes on labour
    That's just ignorant. Who the hell do you think the serf gets his money from to pay his rack renting landlord? Why, he increases the rent he himself is getting from his sublease, or if just a dumb laboring serf himself, he pays the rent from his "labour", so that the rent (tax) charged by the owner (government) is indeed a tax on labor, always and forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    and capital this tax is a boon and not an attack on private property including that in land.
    I've never seen anyone so happy about a tax before. Property taxes are a "boon"? Why don't you tell that to all the retired Californians who got dispossessed by their friendly government property tax assessor in the 1970's.

  6. #86
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Scarecrow,

    I am sure the point I am going to say has been brought up before... and you may have even responded to it before.

    But when someone uses land, then they are getting a benefit from the land that the person did not need to invest to directly achieve.

    Unlike most property, which must be created, land does not need to be created.

    Therefore, it makes sense to tax the land because it which would reduce the tax on things that require capital to have.

    You are right that a land tax is a tax on property, but it is a tax on what someone did not create by their own work.

    I agree with you that a tax on property is bad though. That is why I wrote before that I just wish the government would be clear that it isn't "selling" the land to someone before it will be taxed, but that the person is just renting the land from the government.

    Primarily, a government is just an organization that protects some land first, and therefore the people on it. So it should tax people to live on its land.


    This isn't something that can really be proven one way or another, but its just weighing the pros and cons of each.

    I respect an idea of a complete consumption tax. I believed that shortly ago.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Scarecrow,

    I am sure the point I am going to say has been brought up before... and you may have even responded to it before.

    But when someone uses land, then they are getting a benefit from the land that the person did not need to invest to directly achieve.
    The only time I get a use from land that I didn't have to pay for is when I stop off the freeway to take a leak behind a tree.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Therefore, it makes sense to tax the land because it which would reduce the tax on things that require capital to have.
    Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the land doesn't sprout money trees, therefore the land isn't being taxed, the tenant is, and the tenant has to raise the money by increasing prices to the people using his land to do their business or the tenant has to work harder or do with less or the landlord will evict them?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    You are right that a land tax is a tax on property, but it is a tax on what someone did not create by their own work.
    So what? The tenant has to get the money from somewhere, doesn't he? I bet ya he's getting that by his own work.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I agree with you that a tax on property is bad though. That is why I wrote before that I just wish the government would be clear that it isn't "selling" the land to someone before it will be taxed, but that the person is just renting the land from the government.

    Primarily, a government is just an organization that protects some land first, and therefore the people on it. So it should tax people to live on its land.
    No. It should, at most, impose a sales tax on land, so the people purchasing land from the previous "owners" would make their choice up front, once.

    You people need to learn the difference between "ownership" and "renting".

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    This isn't something that can really be proven one way or another, but its just weighing the pros and cons of each.
    No, I've pretty much proven the cons of allowing the government to own land and treat all citizens as serfs.

    Now I'm just restating the proof because certain people are certain they like being confused on the issue because their gurus have told them something that isn't true, and their gurus just can't be wrong.

  8. #88
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Wasn't meant to be. It was a lesson. I don't argue with people who claim property taxes aren't property taxes because they're called something else but they tax property anyway.

    I don't use double talk. If you're taxing property, it's a property tax, no matter what you feel like pretending it is.



    How the taxation of property reduces the sovereign citizen to the status of serf.
    Not arguments. As I said how a supporter of the "Fair tax" can dare to accuse someone for the LVT of that I'm not sure. It is not an ordinary property tax per se, it is as much a property tax as your attempt to tax the fruit's of my labour is.

    Do you own an orchard? Then no, you fruits shouldn't be taxed, since businesses should not be taxed, since the only thing a business tax does is hide the tax from the consumer paying the tax.
    Irrelevant.

    "site rent" and "ground rent" are paid to the OWNER of the land. If the OWNER of the land is a private citizen, why should they have to pay these "non-taxes" as you claim they are, to someone else?
    Because they didn't create them, because it is therefore better than all other taxes and because it solves a lot of the problem with state-granted land tenure.
    You keep up with the psychobabble and I'll continue to point out that what you're really talking about is taxation and serfdom.
    Not an argument.


    It's ownership "OF" land.
    Not an argument? I hope you aren't silly enough to think you have actually come up with anything like an argument.


    if "society" generated it, let "society" pay it.
    Do you even understand any of what we are talking about?

    You mean "tax".
    Not an argument.



    Can't. Be forcing the putative owner to pay rent, you've turned him into a tenant, and his status is reverted to that of lessor, not owner.


    So you admit the state owns the land, not the lessor (ie "serf")
    No, the community owns the ground and site rent.

    That's just ignorant. Who the hell do you think the serf gets his money from to pay his rack renting landlord? Why, he increases the rent he himself is getting from his sublease, or if just a dumb laboring serf himself, he pays the rent from his "labour", so that the rent (tax) charged by the owner (government) is indeed a tax on labor, always and forever.
    Umm this tax cannot be moved on, it is about the only tax where the burden cannot be moved. The landlord will be the one paying the ground and site rent.

    Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.
    Adam Smith.


    If you are talking about the landlord you have just admitted you have no idea what we are talking about. The money comes from the site rent and ground rent which he does not create. It could only be collected when the land is sold, rented or used for business on or it could simply be taken annually, with exemptions for say average residential usages and a few other things. You clearly don't even really understand what we are talking about.

    I've never seen anyone so happy about a tax before. Property taxes are a "boon"? Why don't you tell that to all the retired Californians who got dispossessed by their friendly government property tax assessor in the 1970's.
    Not an argument.

    Do you have any actual argument or are you hoping this string of attacks and irrelevancies is somehow going to win me over.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #89
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Scarecrow,

    I am sure the point I am going to say has been brought up before... and you may have even responded to it before.

    But when someone uses land, then they are getting a benefit from the land that the person did not need to invest to directly achieve.

    Unlike most property, which must be created, land does not need to be created.

    Therefore, it makes sense to tax the land because it which would reduce the tax on things that require capital to have.

    You are right that a land tax is a tax on property, but it is a tax on what someone did not create by their own work.

    I agree with you that a tax on property is bad though. That is why I wrote before that I just wish the government would be clear that it isn't "selling" the land to someone before it will be taxed, but that the person is just renting the land from the government.

    Primarily, a government is just an organization that protects some land first, and therefore the people on it. So it should tax people to live on its land.


    This isn't something that can really be proven one way or another, but its just weighing the pros and cons of each.

    I respect an idea of a complete consumption tax. I believed that shortly ago.
    Scarecrow is under the strange opinion, a lack of real arguments not withstanding, that local community collecting of ground and site rent not created by the occupier of the land which leaves the important benefits of land ownership intact as well as the individual's access to the full fruit's of their labour while even amending some of the ills of private, state-tenured land ownership is a new form of serfdom. While of course a tax that goes directly on the frui'ts of my labour, by levying a toll on what I sell, hence lowering the demand, and what I buy, hence putting unneeded restrictions and restraints on what I do with the fruit's of my labour and capital, is wonderful.

    One must remember that we are only talking about collecting site rent and ground rent, that value added by nature and society, rather than a broader land tax. This leaves the important aspects of ownership intact.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Fair Tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Not arguments.
    Yeah, you said that.

    Now you're saying that to a paragraph that starts out, "wasn't meant to be an argument, is a lesson".

    Humph!

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    As I said how a supporter of the "Fair tax" can dare to accuse someone for the LVT of that I'm not sure.
    Why the hell would you ask me, did I say I supported this "Fair tax" nonsense?

    No, I did not. I support a national point-of-retail-sale tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    It is not an ordinary property tax per se,
    So? That means it's an extraordinary property tax.

    The last two words are the important two words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    it is as much a property tax as your attempt to tax the fruit's of my labour is. Irrelevant.
    Speaking of irrelevancies, can you explain why you repeatedly discuss the possession by fruit of your labor? That is what "fruit's of your labor" means, does it not? The designation of possession is the function of the apostrophe followed by the letter "s", correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Because they didn't create them, because it is therefore better than all other taxes and because it solves a lot of the problem with state-granted land tenure.
    And introduces ALL the problems associated with state-granted land tenure, which is different from serfdom only in the present quality of modern technological life.

    Are you aware that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the owners of the land, municipalities and other levels of government, can evict tenants from their land to reassign tenantship to other private parties promising a greater return on the owner's land than the current tenants?

    Naturally, the court approving such nonsense didn't describe it like that, but that is the effect of the Kelo vs New London decision.

    The worst attribute of serfdom, forcible eviction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Do you even understand any of what we are talking about?
    I understand what I'm talking about. Since you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the feudalist society you're demanding, it's clear you don't understand what you're talking about and it's clear you don't understand what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    No, the community owns the ground and site rent.
    Right. The owner doesn't own the property, he's just a tenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Umm this tax cannot be moved on, it is about the only tax where the burden cannot be moved. The landlord will be the one paying the ground and site rent.
    Oh. So you're saying that the tenant subletting his lease from the government to other tenants is prohibited by law from increasing the rents he is collecting to cover the cost of rent the owner is imposing on his own lease.

    Why would the owner of the land care who pays the rent so long as it's paid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    [I]Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses.
    Property taxes are property taxes and their existence makes the putative owner of the land a tenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses.[B]
    That's a damn foolish statement. Whenever the cost of goods sold begins to increase, in this case via increases in the rents the government is demanding of it's serfs, the seller of the goods, the lessor subleasing living space to residential tenants for example, will accordingly raise the cost of his sublease to those tenants.

    Unless some ignorant rent-control law forbids this, and the net result of those laws is the creation of slums and abandoned buildings suitable for crack houses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    If you are talking about the landlord you have just admitted you have no idea what we are talking about.
    Funny watching a socialist quote Adam Smith.

    Try discussing what you're told. Since the government imposes the tax, enforcable by rude men with weapons, the government arrogates the ownership of the land and relegates the would-be owner to the status of lessor.

    Can you accept this, or not?

    If you can't accept this simple and undeniable truth, what's your purpose?

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •