Comments 1 - 40 of 98 Next » Last » Search these comments
Because the entire state apparatus for collecting and monitoring sales tax would be gone!
if that happens @Patrick, can we lift the ban on open posting of titty pics all over PatNet in celebration?( ● Y ● )
OK, I accept the elimination of state income tax and sales tax in return for implementing a land value tax!
If it's less than property tax though I'd drop rent.
if that happens @Patrick, can we lift the ban on open posting of titty pics all over PatNet in celebration?
OK, I accept the elimination of state income tax and sales tax in return for implementing a land value tax!Seems like a good place to start.
We already pay Land Value Tax, regardless of it has some improvement or not.
Another way to put it: you should keep 100% of the result of your own labor, but 0% of what you take from other people's labor.
And we should not tax the improvements at all, like the buildings. Those things should be taxed at 0%, that is, not taxed at all.
Another way to put it: you should keep 100% of the result of your own labor, but 0% of what you take from other people's labor.That's a recipe for disaster and the entire reason we have capital gains taxes with low rates. People would invest less and be willing to risk less.
How about we just get rid of most taxes?Tariffs anyone?
We already pay Land Value Tax, regardless of it has some improvement or not.Yes, but not nearly enough. The portion of rent which from land value alone should be taxed at 100%.And we should not tax the improvements at all, like the buildings. Those things should be taxed at 0%, that is, not taxed at all.Another way to put it: you should keep 100% of the result of your own labor, but 0% of what you take from other people's labor.
On that note it looks like we'll be doubling the size of the IRS this year after all. My dad told me that each new IRS agent will need to collect an additional $1M in tax revenue just to break even on the money they are spending in the Schumer-Manchin bill.
Many states have real estate to be taxed on 100% Market Value: Including improvement portion and Land portion.That is including California.For instance: Someone is buying residential property in Palo Alto. He is paying $3M. The next day he demolished old improvement for purpose to build a new house. The next year will receive a property Tax bill based on his Purchase Price, the Market Value of $3M, which in fact represent Only Land Value.
Assume for a second we move 50 years into the future. Now ~all owners of the land just inherited it. Should society's wealth really flow to them? What are the incentives? Why tax income, just to preserve their - ultimately based solely on status quo - property rights.
The problem is that that land value is not taxed nearly enough. It should be taxed to the point that no one will speculate on land values.
You know, calculation of land value could be done pretty easily like this:1. What is the current market price for this property? Call that P.2. What would be the cost to re-create the current building (or other improvements) on that land? Call that B.The value of the land is P - B.
How much would you tax Farmlands? Not always are cultivated to the fulness.
That partially works only when house burned, and insurance is paying for rebuilding. The new house will get a new assessment anyway.
Though I, personally, appreciate your finely curated pictures, porn is ubiquitous on the Internet. Free speech is not.
Bill Gates is the largest farmer in the United States.
you should always have enough money to pay the tax, since what's being taxed is the money you get in rent above and beyond your wages and the return from your capital.
The real issue, IMHO, should be anti-monopoly / anti-concentration.
What is Georgist "land" vs. what is improvement is not clear-cut
If the ideal tax rate on land is the land value multiplied by the prevailing interest rate, then arguably the owner is already paying that by holding onto the land
Keeping trespassers off whatever land has its value (just look at the homeless settlement on "public land" in cities like Seattle).
Owning farm land and renting it out to farmers in and of itself (in a competitive market place) is not necessarily "rent-seeking" in the Georgist sense: the owner has simply bought the capitalized value of all the historical improvements done to the farm land, such as cutting all the trees, removing all the stumps, building the irrigation network and the hundred of years preventing tree seedlings from growing into trees and preserving the fertility of the plot of land (e.g. risking Dust-bowl phenomenon).
tax-farming big concentrated landlords
it would be dangerous to make bureaucrats' salaries and pensions entirely dependent on a few big landlords)
The Land Value tax has another key benefit: it has falsifiable predictions, and can be implemented incrementally and achieve incremental benefits (as we've seen in some real life implementations).
The United States is doing what it can to free Brittney Griner for bringing illegal drugs into Russia. We have people doing fucking MORE TIME THAN HER for doing EXACTLY the same thing within the United States.
Ashwin ParameswaranWrites macro-resilienceApr 16, 2021Simply implementing a Land Value Tax in the manner that George suggested will almost certainly trigger a banking/financial and economic crisis as the rents that this tax seeks to eliminate have been a) capitalised into the price of land and b)the land in question has been levered up to a very high degree. The LVT will cause a significant fall in prices which will lead to defaults, bank failures and even personal bankruptcies (e.g. a middle-class family with a 90% LTV mortgage in a metropolitan city). For example, the same problem applies in removing farm subsidies where the value of subsidies has been capitalised and levered such that any removal will trigger bankruptcies and financial losses.This is not a criticism of George as the same conditions may not have applied in his time. One possible solution is to introduce the tax in stages with a modest tax to begin with.RandomstringofcharactersApr 16, 2021No reason it has to be implemented at 100% instantly. You can implement it in gradually increasing amounts over a longer timescale, with advanced notice of the changes so people can financially adapt. That's how lots of laws are done.
Except that it will be incredibly unpopular, your party will lose the next election, and then the tax gets rolled back...
Comments 1 - 40 of 98 Next » Last » Search these comments