• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we eliminate taxes that tax you for the right to own property?

Should we eliminate taxes that tax you for the right to own property?

  • Total voters
    31
I am in China at the moment. We were talking about thing like the one child policy. They don't actually have it anymore, there are just rural party leaders who enforce it of their own. Now what they do is make you pay for the services the additional kids get.

They were appalled that someone with 12 kids pays no more that someone with 1, or none.

Even the real socialists don't agree with what we do.
 
Aberration said:
I am in China at the moment. We were talking about thing like the one child policy. They don't actually have it anymore, there are just rural party leaders who enforce it of their own. Now what they do is make you pay for the services the additional kids get.

They were appalled that someone with 12 kids pays no more that someone with 1, or none.

Even the real socialists don't agree with what we do.
Click to expand...

you should have as many children as you can afford to raise properly. sadly, the least able tend to spawn like toads while the high achievers tend to have very small families.
 
Federalist said:
Economists define public goods as non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Education does not satisfy that definition.
Click to expand...

Screw your economists. Go out and interview normal citizens and ask them if education is a public good. My money is on them. What about yours?

I just googled PUBLIC GOOD DEFINITION and this is the first lead


pub·lic good
Noun:
A commodity or service provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization...
The benefit or well-being of the public.
Click to expand...

Looks like your defintion is intentionally skewed and not at all correct.
 
haymarket said:
Screw your economists. Go out and interview normal citizens and ask them if education is a public good. My money is on them. What about yours?

I just googled PUBLIC GOOD DEFINITION and this is the first lead

Looks like your defintion is intentionally skewed and not at all correct.
Click to expand...

I will reproduce what I wrote earlier.

Federalist said:
I would definitely agree with changing things in my own state to reduce the cost of state government. Since schooling is not (economically speaking) a public good, I would certainly get behind the idea of education being provided by the private sector, rather than through state socialism.
Click to expand...

I was using the precise economic definition of a public good. If you have a problem with that definition, take it up with the economics department at your nearest university.
 
Federalist said:
I will reproduce what I wrote earlier.



I was using the precise economic definition of a public good. If you have a problem with that definition, take it up with the economics department at your nearest university.
Click to expand...

Your "economically speaking" is not worth the economic value of a good bag of common garden manure if you are attempting to use it to push the stupidity that public education is not a public good.

We do not allow some economist to define what is and what is not in the national interests.

And thank God for that.
 
haymarket said:
Your "economically speaking" is not worth the economic value of a good bag of common garden manure if you are attempting to use it to push the stupidity that public education is not a public good.

We do not allow some economist to define what is and what is not in the national interests.

And thank God for that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. that is why when Obama's advertisements constantly quote that complete ass Paul Krugman we should ignore his braying
 
haymarket said:
Your "economically speaking" is not worth the economic value of a good bag of common garden manure if you are attempting to use it to push the stupidity that public education is not a public good.
Click to expand...
You do understand that economists have a precise definition of what constitutes a public good, do you not? You may want to check this out: Public good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree with you. that is why when Obama's advertisements constantly quote that complete ass Paul Krugman we should ignore his braying
Click to expand...

Glad to see that. But I am not aware of Krugman attempting to define what the PUBLIC GOOD is in the manner of the nameless economist that another alluded to. Do you know of Krugman doing this?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So we should just get rid of the taxes now and make it a whole of a lot ****ing worse?
Click to expand...

Maybe we should eliminate this method of taxing and education spending, and spend on education some other way. I'm sure it would have drawbacks but I think it would have advantages too.
 
Federalist said:
You do understand that economists have a precise definition of what constitutes a public good, do you not? You may want to check this out: Public good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



If you want to play dueling wikipedia citations, here is this one which YOUR OWN LINK provided for me right at the start of the article you cited:

Common good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common good or common weal is a term that can refer to several different concepts. In the popular meaning, the common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science.
Click to expand...
 
Neomalthusian said:
Maybe we should eliminate this method of taxing and education spending, and spend on education some other way. I'm sure it would have drawbacks but I think it would have advantages too.
Click to expand...

Eliminate the method of taxing? Please explain how we can pay for education then? All private schools?
 
Quite the contrary to the OP, we should ONLY tax the unimproved value of real property. This is the ideal tax, it lead to no deadweight loss on the economy and is entirely justifiable under libertarian property theory.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Eliminate property taxes as the means by which education is funded.
Click to expand...
Well its funded three ways
1.)State
2.)Property tax
3.)Federal

I agree that we should reform on how education is funded, i personally believe the federal and state govs should fund more, but i also believe that property tax has done some good in the areas of education and we should keep it around.
 
No taxes?

How will the banks and rich be bailed out when greed goes to their heads and they stuff the economy up every decade or so?

Who will fund all the wars?

Who will pay for the running of the 1000+ military installations in over 140 countries around the world?

Who will subsidise the fossil fuel industry?

There would have been NO money to nationalise GMH in the last financial crisis - the US would have essentially lost its local car making industry (whats left of it that is)

There would be NO nuclear power power plants in the USA if not for tax subsidies and public liability coverage - you see ladies and gentlemen, it is not possible to obtain public liability insurance for a nuclear power plant anywhere in the world. The state and tax payers foot the bill in case of an accident.

In fact even the INTERNET and the PC originated from tax funded research and development.

need I continue?
 
comedy4all said:
States and counties that have high property taxes tend to drive away property owners. All other factors being the same; if you can buy a house in one county and pay $300 less a year to buy a house in the next county, would you pay extra for no reason?
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but someone will still own the property either way. However, I agree that it could dissuade people from buying property in certain jurisdictions, which is one reason I think it's best to implement a property tax at as upper level of government as possible. Doing it at the state level is better than at the local level, and doing it at the national level is better still. That solves two problems: It makes it harder to avoid the tax, and it reduces wealth disparity more.

As far as I'm concerned, this would actually be preferable to an income tax...and certainly preferable to a consumption tax or corporate tax.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
I agree...for the most part. We still have decades to compare to we can also compare with tax policies to other countries. Conservatives point to Sweden and I agree with the fact that Sweden lowering their top rate from something like 90% to 75% increased revenue. At the extreme yes it can make an impact. At the same time we can point to nations like Germany with higher rates who are definately competitive with the US when it comes to growth. I have no problem with people arguing over tax policy. That's how we should determine tax policy...through debate over the merits and costs over changes to the tax code. My issue is this crazy idea that lower taxes have this massive upside (spur economic growth) and no downside (lower taxes offset by that growth). That's just wrong. It's a faulty "have your cake and eat" it view.





I do agree that differnt measures are more effective in different situations. I hold the view of the President...that tax cuts have become the cure all to the right. The problem with the rights "cure all" is it's not even related to the symptoms. We have a demand problem not a capital investment problem. Tax cuts for the middle class have an impact but there's not companies out there starving for capital.

As for a stimulus...there are times a stimulus wouldn't be beneficial. The thing is economist on the left agree with that.
Click to expand...

Our problem is not so much the tax rates which are a problem, and tax inequality which is also a problem, but tax rate and application instability, this along with same problems in regulation is what is hinder our growth badly. Things keep CHANGING with the back and forth from both parties and you really cant plan that far in advance anymore. Right now the oilfields are shutting down rigs where I am at in anticpation of the elections. Oil is at a relitive high point they shouldnt be shutting down but they are.
 
haymarket said:
If you want to play dueling wikipedia citations, here is this one which YOUR OWN LINK provided for me right at the start of the article you cited:

Common good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

As fascinating as that is, how does that have anything to do with my statement?

Federalist said:
I would definitely agree with changing things in my own state to reduce the cost of state government. Since schooling is not (economically speaking) a public good, I would certainly get behind the idea of education being provided by the private sector, rather than through state socialism.
Click to expand...
 
Federalist said:
As fascinating as that is, how does that have anything to do with my statement?
Click to expand...

It shows that defining a public good in that way is ridiculous.
 
haymarket said:
It shows that defining a public good in that way is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You keep switching back and forth between using the terms "public good" and "common good". As I have pointed out, economists have a precise definition of goods that are considered public goods, namely that they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The term "common good" means something else entirely, and has nothing to do with my initial point.

My point was that education, being a good that is both non-rivalrous and non-exludable, can be provided on the market without risk of market failure. Thus, in my opinion, it should be provided on the market, since economists generally agree that, in the absence of market failure, the market provides the highest quality at the lowest cost.
 
And I have pointed out that to define a term like PUBLIC GOOD in that way is ridiculous as it is misleading in the extreme.

We as a people long ago have decided that there are certain functions that we want handled by the public sector where the common good is the priority and remove them from the profit motive which rules the day in the private sector.
 
haymarket said:
And I have pointed out that to define a term like PUBLIC GOOD in that way is ridiculous as it is misleading in the extreme.
Click to expand...
And I have pointed out that if you don't like the way economists define a public good, then you'll have to take that up with the professors at your local university.

We as a people long ago have decided that there are certain functions that we want handled by the public sector where the common good is the priority and remove them from the profit motive which rules the day in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that this decision was made and why it was made. However, I am advocating that in my state we abandon socialized education, as state socialism has generally proven to fail miserably when compared to private production.

Likewise, I encourage you, and your fellow citizens, to enact whatever policies you deem best for the people of your state.
 
There is nothing to take up with these nameless anonymous professors. This twisted so called defintion of the public good bears not true resemblance to anything the American people know as the public or common good.
 
haymarket said:
There is nothing to take up with these nameless anonymous professors. This twisted so called defintion of the public good bears not true resemblance to anything the American people know as the public or common good.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you are so ignorant regarding economics, but that is your problem not my problem.

Since your ignorance causes you to be uncomfortable with my use of the economic term "public good", I will revise my original statement and we can move on:

"I would definitely agree with changing things in my own state to reduce the cost of state government. Since schooling is non-rivalrous and non-excludable and hence is not subject to market failure, I would certainly get behind the idea of education being provided by the private sector, rather than through state socialism."
 
PirateMk1 said:
Our problem is not so much the tax rates which are a problem, and tax inequality which is also a problem, but tax rate and application instability, this along with same problems in regulation is what is hinder our growth badly. Things keep CHANGING with the back and forth from both parties and you really cant plan that far in advance anymore. Right now the oilfields are shutting down rigs where I am at in anticpation of the elections. Oil is at a relitive high point they shouldnt be shutting down but they are.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that to a certain extent. Sure consistency is important. Why are they shutting down the rigs? It's not like oil isn't profitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom