• 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!

The Fair Tax

Do you support the Fair Tax?


  • Total voters
    45
Not that of the occupier(well a tiny amount as he is part of society.) . He is already collecting the tax.

Let's see if I can get this straight.

You're saying the person occupying the property, ie the "owner", has to pay the tax, therefore he's collecting it?


No, you aren't understanding this at all. If I own a piece of vacant land in the middle of Manhattan and one an almost identical one in the middle of Wyoming they have very different prices, that is because of site rent.

Yes. Property tax is rent. Glad to see you got that straight. Except, naturall, they're not "almost" identical. Nowhere near. If you were going to be precise in your terminology, you'd say, "same size acreage", etc.

Are you saying that this is caused by the owners?

It is caused by neighbors, basically.

It is caused by society.

All valuation of property is defined by two people, the owner and the potential buyer. If they come to an agreement on value, a sale may occur.

The tax, it is not really a tax in some ways,

The tax, yes, it's really a tax. It's really a tax in all ways, up to and including the gangsters with guns that will dispossess you if you don't pay it.

is simply a collection of that difference, of what is created by society and nature and is completely separate from the individual value of the improvements to the land.

Nature doesn't create the value of land, it merely created the land. Nature, being both inanimate and non-sentient, doesn't grok the concept of value.

Aside from the absurdity of linking Marx, feudalism and me in one single post there is little of value in the above. I do not deny that the individual partially holds property in natural resources from the community but that does not mean they have many other rights to it besides that of collecting the site and ground rent which are currently being taxed to go to the private landlord at great expense to society. This they should do instead of most other taxes.

"at great expense to society"? How much expense did "society" pay to create the land? Nada. How much did "society" pay to build the house on the hill George lives in? Nada. Where's this mysterious "great expense"? You're not going to babble about roads, are you, that George paid his fair share of taxes to build, just like everyone else, are you? You're not going to wobble on and on about electricity and water and sewer and all the rest are you, when George pays his share of that, are you? You're not going to utter nonsense about the highly educated force of public school graduates, are you, not when George graduated from Sidwell Friends, right?

No, the house was built at great expense by a developer, who passed the entire cost, plus a decent profit, onto the first buyer, and who passed that cost on to the next buyer, etc, and this mythical "society" not only didn't spend much, but benefitted by all that economic activity.

You are aware this tax had the support of the likes of Winston Churchill and Albert.J.Nock and was viciously attacked by Marx? You should try and actually make decent rebuttals rather than insult people, you'd come out looking a lot better.

Are You aware that name dropping and other such argumentative nonsense has zero rebuttal value and is clearly indicates a failure on your part to find valid support for your argument?
 
With a due sense of frustration and a sense of getting nowhere I will answer your continued questions.

No. The ownership of the land is in question. If the government can impose a rent, the "owner" isn't the guy who's name is on the documents, but the guy in the state capital setting the tax rates.
Firstly I never said how it would be collected. I favour local community collection. Secondly if they can impose a tax on your income or spending then that is much the same. This is the simply the collection of ground rent and site rent, it only means that is not yours, nothing else.
So in reality you like to say you believe in private property but that's has nothing to do with what you actually believe.
Not an argument.


No. I said I believe in private property, which means the owner of property, by definition, doesn't have to pay rent to someone else.
Do you believe in slavery? Not all private property has to be defended. Property is a wide and diverse thing. The owner is not paying rent, he is giving up what society and nature produce.
Society has no rights. Not one single one. People have legal guarantees that the government will not intrude in certain areas, and some of these are so basic that their mistaken for rights, but the reality is that the concept of "rights" is nothing more than sloppy verbal shorthand for saying "butt out, myob, not your concern here".
Society allows you to own property, it has some sort of say over just what that means. There are ways of doing this and that is putting it simply but I don't believe that you are the absolute owner to all you claim as your private property.

There are no downsides to private ownership of land.
Sure there are. In the state driven monopoly ownership we are trying to limit there are. The prices goes up, rent goes up, this puts down wages and the returns to capital as these must be paid to a landlord who gets a lot of the value from the increases in production and improvement created by others.
 
Let's see if I can get this straight.

You're saying the person occupying the property, ie the "owner", has to pay the tax, therefore he's collecting it?
No I'm saying it is already collected by the private landlord, all I'm saying is it go to the community instead.


Yes. Property tax is rent. Glad to see you got that straight. Except, naturall, they're not "almost" identical. Nowhere near. If you were going to be precise in your terminology, you'd say, "same size acreage", etc.
:yawn:
This is not a property tax so your argument is irrelevant.



It is caused by neighbors, basically.
Well you admit my point good. You can call society neighbours if you want.



All valuation of property is defined by two people, the owner and the potential buyer. If they come to an agreement on value, a sale may occur.
:lol: Great indepth analysis.


The tax, yes, it's really a tax. It's really a tax in all ways, up to and including the gangsters with guns that will dispossess you if you don't pay it.
Not an argument.


Nature doesn't create the value of land, it merely created the land.
:doh



"at great expense to society"? How much expense did "society" pay to create the land? Nada. How much did "society" pay to build the house on the hill George lives in? Nada. Where's this mysterious "great expense"? You're not going to babble about roads, are you, that George paid his fair share of taxes to build, just like everyone else, are you? You're not going to wobble on and on about electricity and water and sewer and all the rest are you, when George pays his share of that, are you? You're not going to utter nonsense about the highly educated force of public school graduates, are you, not when George graduated from Sidwell Friends, right?

No, the house was built at great expense by a developer, who passed the entire cost, plus a decent profit, onto the first buyer, and who passed that cost on to the next buyer, etc, and this mythical "society" not only didn't spend much, but benefitted by all that economic activity.
I meant the expense of increased rent and land values, land speculation, lower wages and returns on capital and such. 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.

Are You aware that name dropping and other such argumentative nonsense has zero rebuttal value and is clearly indicates a failure on your part to find valid support for your argument?
And who was it that started naming people like say Karl Marx? Are you aware that insults and insinuations have zero rebuttal value. Obviously you don't have much else in your arsenal but still they aren't arguments.:2wave:
 
Firstly I never said how it would be collected. I favour local community collection.

From the viewpoint of the renter, does it matter if the owner is living in town hall instead of the state capitol or the White House?

Nope, don't matter at all.

Secondly if they can impose a tax on your income or spending then that is much the same.

Not really.

One, income shouldn't be taxed, as that makes the worker the subject of the state. American citizens aren't supposed to be "subjects", they're sovereign individuals.

Secondly, sales taxes, properly applied, are subject to the individual's choice. This means, naturally, that essentials such as food and medicine should not be subject to sales tax, nor should permanent rental residences.


This is the simply the collection of ground rent and site rent, it only means that is not yours, nothing else.

Right. Thus the "owner" isn't the owner, as I already pointed out.

Do you believe in slavery?

No. I oppose all forms of socialism and so-called "progressive" movements that merely cover for some form of socialism.

Not all private property has to be defended.

Why not? The function of government is to protect people from losing their lives and property to predation.

Property is a wide and diverse thing. The owner is not paying rent, he is giving up what society and nature produce.

The individuals making up "society" did the producing, not the society itself. Also, those individuals were already paid, and "society" isn't owed a ha'penny standup, to use a cute little phrase I picked up from Terry Pratchett.

Society allows you to own property

No, not if I have to pay "society" rent, it's not allowing me to own ****. Society is forcing me to be a permanent tenant.

it has some sort of say over just what that means.

No. Meanings are found in dictionaries.

There are ways of doing this and that is putting it simply but I don't believe that you are the absolute owner to all you claim as your private property.

No. Your "society" has enough guns to extort their rent from it's tenants.
 
From the viewpoint of the renter, does it matter if the owner is living in town hall instead of the state capitol or the White House?

Nope, don't matter at all.
Yes but he is not a renter, he simply does not own the site or ground rent. Property rights to land means quite a few things, it is only in this one respect he is not owner.



Not really.

One, income shouldn't be taxed, as that makes the worker the subject of the state. American citizens aren't supposed to be "subjects", they're sovereign individuals.

Secondly, sales taxes, properly applied, are subject to the individual's choice. This means, naturally, that essentials such as food and medicine should not be subject to sales tax, nor should permanent rental residences.
However one's choices are being taxed, one's freedom restricted, one's labour being taken. You don't have to work after all.



Right. Thus the "owner" isn't the owner, as I already pointed out.
He isn't the owner of the site or ground rent, it isn't the fruits of his labour nor necessary for his stable, secure ownership of real property. Hence you argument which attempts to conflate ground rent and site rent with all the aspects of land ownership fails.


No. I oppose all forms of socialism and so-called "progressive" movements that merely cover for some form of socialism.
Good for you. I started the traditionalists and social conservative usergroup on this site. This scheme was supported by the likes of Nock and Churchill, it is far from a socialist one.


Why not? The function of government is to protect people from losing their lives and property to predation.
The function of gov't is justice as Burke said I believe.


The individuals making up "society" did the producing, not the society itself.
So? They aren't getting the income.



No, not if I have to pay "society" rent, it's not allowing me to own ****. Society is forcing me to be a permanent tenant.
You aren't paying rent, the site rent and ground rent you didn't produce are being collected. That is your ultimate argument, that something you didn't produce is being taken from you and most other taxes reduced or removed and therefore somehow you are a renter? Not very convincing.


No. Meanings are found in dictionaries.
What


No. Your "society" has enough guns to extort their rent from it's tenants.
Not arguments. Not all private property rights are absolute.
 
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.

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.

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.

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".

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.
 
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.
 
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.


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.

Nope I did not mean that.

Too bad, it's still the owner's problem, not "society's".

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?
 
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.
:yawn:


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.
 
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.

What are you talking about?

How the taxation of property reduces the sovereign citizen to the status of serf.

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.

Ownership to land currently and theoretically contains several parts.

It's ownership "OF" land.

One of the parts today is collecting ground rent

You mean "tax".

generated by nature and site rent


You mean "tax".

generated by society

if "society" generated it, let "society" pay it.

You mean "tax".

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.

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")

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.

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.
 
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,

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.
 
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.:doh

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.
 
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.:doh

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.
 
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!

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.

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.

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?

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.


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.

No, the community owns the ground and site rent.

Right. The owner doesn't own the property, he's just a tenant.

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?

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.

A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses.


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.

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?
 
One must remember that we are only talking about collecting site rent and ground rent,

No.

You need to learn that we're discussing taxes, not rents. If you insist on calling them rents then you must accept that owners collect rents from tenants.

And therefore you are not discussing the benefits of private ownership of property, but socialism.
 
No.

You need to learn that we're discussing taxes, not rents. If you insist on calling them rents then you must accept that owners collect rents from tenants.

And therefore you are not discussing the benefits of private ownership of property, but socialism.
Do you even know what ground rent is?
 
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.
Much the same thing within the context of our argument. And you dare to accuse me of wanting serfdom.:2wave:

So? That means it's an extraordinary property tax.

The last two words are the important two words.
Not an argument.

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.
State-land tenure is the current system. I'm talking of alleviating its ills.
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.
Irrelevant to our discussion.

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.
Not an argument.

Right. The owner doesn't own the property, he's just a tenant.
He does not own the site rent and ground rent. He owns the rest. He is not a tenant.


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?
Did you even read what I wrote and quoted? He cannot move the burden because of the situation of the supply of land relative to the demand and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_rent"]how rent is determined[/ame].

File:perfectly inelastic supply.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfectly_inelastic_supply.svg


The "law of Rent states that the rent of a land site is equal to the economic advantage obtained by using the site in its most productive use, relative to the advantage obtained by using marginal (i.e., the best rent-free) land for the same purpose, given the same inputs of labor and capital." Therefore by raising the rent to get around this burden all the landlord does is increase the ground and site rent which is collected and gets no benefit.

Property taxes are property taxes and their existence makes the putative owner of the land a tenant.
Not an argument. As he is in complete control of everything but the ground and site rent which he did not create. Unlike your system where is labour is partly the states'.


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.
You really don't understand this at all do you? The ground and site rent is already being collected by the landlord, this is simply collecting that and giving it to the community. The landlord cannot shift the burden because as Ricardo showed, and Smith in that quote alludes to, the rate of ground rent and site rent is determined by the difference between the land in question from that on the margins of usage. If the landlord raises the ground rent, that is collected.

Funny watching a socialist quote Adam Smith.
You do know I'm one of the most conservative posters on this board right? Far more so than you.

And I at least understand and have read 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?
Not an argument.
 
Last edited:
People would save more and spend less! I'm for it over the current system.
Wouldn't a Flat tax for everyone be better?
 
Much the same thing within the context of our argument. And you dare to accuse me of wanting serfdom.:2wave:

What do you call it when you see someone demanding that the owners of property be converted into tenants on a national scale?

State-land tenure is the current system. I'm talking of alleviating its ills.

Are no ills.

The "law of Rent states that the rent of a land site is equal to the economic advantage obtained by using the site in its most productive use, relative to the advantage obtained by using marginal (i.e., the best rent-free) land for the same purpose, given the same inputs of labor and capital." Therefore by raising the rent to get around this burden all the landlord does is increase the ground and site rent which is collected and gets no benefit.

In other words, you're using someone else's doublespeak to babble around the fact that the operators of a business will increase the price of their good or product to compensate for increases in the cost of running that business.

Raise the TAX on a property, and the people liable to pay that tax will pass that cost on to anyone seeking to use that property, unless they themselves are occupying that land for non-commercial purposes, in which case they themselves have to pay out of their own pocket.

If the feudal lord raises the TAX on that land to the point where the non-commercial occupants can no longer afford to pay that tax, they either abandon the property or are evicted. Just like in the feudal days of yore.

This is what you're advocating, doesn't matter if you pretend your "land rent" isn't a "tax".

Taxing property in that fashion converts the citizen owner into the serf.

You want to lie to yourself and pretend otherwise, that's fine.

Do not expect us to play along with you.
 
Right, I'm sick of this silliness, let's wrap it up.

Yes, it's a tax imposed by the government on the tenants it allows to hold title to the land.

Not an argument; an assertion that reveals ignorance of the entire conception.

What do you call it when you see someone demanding that the owners of property be converted into tenants on a national scale?
Not an argument.

Are no ills.
Already dealt with. Not an argument.

In other words, you're using someone else's doublespeak to babble around the fact that the operators of a business will increase the price of their good or product to compensate for increases in the cost of running that business.

Raise the TAX on a property, and the people liable to pay that tax will pass that cost on to anyone seeking to use that property, unless they themselves are occupying that land for non-commercial purposes, in which case they themselves have to pay out of their own pocket.

If the feudal lord raises the TAX on that land to the point where the non-commercial occupants can no longer afford to pay that tax, they either abandon the property or are evicted. Just like in the feudal days of yore.

This is what you're advocating, doesn't matter if you pretend your "land rent" isn't a "tax".

Taxing property in that fashion converts the citizen owner into the serf.

You want to lie to yourself and pretend otherwise, that's fine.

Do not expect us to play along with you.
In other words you are taking no notice at all of what I'm saying or even trying to debate in a mature, intelligent way. None of the above is relevant or much of an argument. I've proved my points, you have not.
 
Right, I'm sick of this silliness, let's wrap it up.



Not an argument; an assertion that reveals ignorance of the entire conception.

Not supposed to be an argument. It's a reassignment of definitions so people silly enough to think calling a tax a "rent" will alter the fact that it really is a rent can't escape what it is that being discussed, namely the imposition of feudalism on formerly free people.

You failed to understand that basic concept and hence have been biting yourself in the forehead all this time.
 
Not supposed to be an argument.
Then it carries little weight.

It's a reassignment of definitions so people silly enough to think calling a tax a "rent" will alter the fact that it really is a rent can't escape what it is that being discussed, namely the imposition of feudalism on formerly free people.

You failed to understand that basic concept and hence have been biting yourself in the forehead all this time.
Not an argument. Do you have anything that properly addresses my points? Or are you to continue to evade them?
 
Whether I would support it or not would depend in part on the rate. I've heard rates quoted at more than .35 cents on the dollar... this I would not support.

The rate is 23%. It is calculated like this: For a $100 item, $23 goes to the government, $77 goes to the store. Simple as that.
 
Back
Top Bottom