patrick.net

they'll tax anything they can. As long as you make money, somebody high up wants his piece of your pie.

Obama Administration floats plan to tax the number of miles driven .... I'm not making this up:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

PS: read the entire article. For those on the Left, that means, don't stop at the Administration's denial of the plan.

We probably do get taxed enough, it's just that the Repugnican'ts keep spending it all!

Matt.BayArea says

that we should have a single tax

I did the math and I don't think a land value tax can really cover the costs of modern government. . .

Total spending is $6.1T this year.

If we keep FICA and medicare as they are (and we should), actual government is $4.4T/yr. That's $36,000 per household, $3000/mo.

If we get rid of corporate income tax and substitute a flat tax of 10% on our $11T national income, we'd see $1.1T in revenue, leaving a need for $3.3T.

There are 30,000 sq miles of urban land (cities over 100,000), ~20 million acres. Take about half as marginal (untaxable), that leaves ~10 million acres of average urbanity. At a $1M/acre land value and 5% millage, that would be $500B in revenue. Take another 10% -- 2 million acres -- as primo urban land @ $5M/acre, that's another $500B/yr in revenue @ 5% millage.

There are 3.8 million square miles of land in the US, 2.4 billion acres. Take half as marginal (untaxable), and 40% as basic ag land with a $200/acre rent, that would be another $200B in LVT.

The 10% remaining would be interesting, since this is the prime land that has generally quite high valuation. We're talking forests, coastal properties, etc. Perhaps 1% of this 10% -- 2.4 million acres -- is worth $5M/acre, for a tax yield of $300B/yr (at 2.5% millage)

The remaining ~240 million acres might have a valuation of $50,000 acre, at 2.5% pa that would yield another $300B/yr.

So that's $1.8T in LVT. Still need another $1.5T. . . .

Spoken like a true liberal who never hated a tax (I don't have to pay)? You are one funny man! I know this is the internetz and there is no restriction on who can view this, but I really wonder if he reaches anyone with his .... (I'm trying very hard to keep it clean) ... opinions.

FYI - I happen to pay quite a few taxes:) Including those on the list. And I'm quite happy to - I use so many services that have to be paid for. Why not by me? I use them!

Is this the part where I'm supposed to say some (untrue) broad statement that insults conservatives? Ok, I'll try. Spoken like a typical conservative - wants all the good things of our modern society, but doesn't want to pay for it (let the poor pay with their sweat and blood!)! AND wants to wage war across the world to spread fundamentalist christian idealogy! I'm not very good at this, sorry. I'll practice.

Well, I won't take any more of your time - I know you bloodless-hearted conservatives have to spend most of your time biting the necks of poor children in order to feed your satanic rituals, and I would hate to let hyperbole of any sort get in the way.

PS Sorry to any other conservatives, I didn't mean it.

Rayray asks if we pay enough taxes. I do. He obviously doesn't.

Do we pay enough taxes? Obviously not, in comparison to what we spend, which is the only relevant yardstick. Otherwise we wouldn't have a budget deficit. Duh.

Ray, you still have not listed the spending you would cut in order to close the budget deficit. Even with your porposed spending cuts liek defense and earmarks, you would still have over $1 trillion in deficits. But don't worry, you can use this tool to balance the budget. Once you balance the budget, post a link to your proposal so we can all see it:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

HW, thanks for the link.

I know nobody asked me, but here is my solution ;-)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=821vj419

Monopoly money uses paper and ink too...

HousingWatcher says

Once you balance the budget, post a link to your proposal so we can all see it:

That's some scary browser based software there. Ray would do it if he could only figure out how to work it.

@Ray

>"If I were King: End the colonialism that has become U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. End our “Israel or nothing” approach to the region. Close down the vast majority of armed forces bases throughout the world and bring home the troops. End both involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drastically cut military spending, including a dramatic reduction in the size of our Navy."

You do realize that if someone like McCain or Palin were president, this would have about as much chance of happening as $%$%&$...

I think besides out of control spending, the other big problem is that about half the people out there don't pay income taxes. Everybody should pay something.

American in Japan says

You do realize that if someone like McCain or Palin were president, this would have about as much chance of happening as $%$%&$…

Of course. That's precisely why the American people have to wake up to the fact that there is a power structure in place that is in complete control of our foreign policies. I just finished an excellent, short book by Chalmers Johnson; "Dismantling of Empire: America's Last Best Hope." I highly recommend this book. BTW, Johnson definitely leans to the left. What we really have in this country is an Oligarchy in which both parties have morphed into one, elite ruling class. Have you noticed Obama (Mr. Hope & Change) has not only kept intact Bush's foreign policies, but has actually expanded them?

thunderlips11 says

This graph is an indication that Clinton inherited a great Economy. I can't give Clinton credit for good economy (since it is inherited) as much as I can't give Obama blame for economic collapse.

Clinton's "surplus" must be taken in context of how it happened. Much of the long term debt was re-financed into short term, riskier loans that had lower interest rates. The Cold War ended, allowing massive cuts in military spending. Clinton also shifted much of the welfare obligations onto the states. The economy, fueled by massive personal & corporate debt, grew for the short term which increased tax revenues. Having said all that, Clinton does deserve credit for at least attempting to reduce government spending, unlike the following two presidents (Bush & Obama). Clinton did have the GOP congress to deal with after his first mid-term election. Bush has zero excuse due to the fact that he had a GOP congress for six years.

If de-valuing our currency is so bad Chris, then why has it worked so well for China?

RayAmerica says

allowing massive cuts in military spending

What massive cuts was that? Military spending dropped less than 5% from the peak in 1990 to the trough in 1998. So what does this matter anyway? The federal budget continued to grow every single year.

RayAmerica says

The economy, fueled by massive personal & corporate debt, grew for the short term which increased tax revenues.

The economy grew in the 90's because of the revolution in computers and the crash of oil prices. Massive personal and corporate date fueled growth was the 2000's. Please get your history correct at least once and a while.

Hi Bob ... Churchill once said: "It is futile to argue with a man that is irrational." Have you noticed I usually don't bother answering your posts? The aforementioned quote should give you a hint as to why that is.

Taxes are necessary for a civilized society. I like parks, roads, schools, defense, libraries, etc. Hating taxes means hating making your fair contribution. Paying your taxes is patriotic. Make a contribution and shut up about it.

And waste, sure there's waste. When I worked in private industry there was plenty of waste. And at home I have 5 beautiful tomatoes rotting in my fridge. It's inevitable. We must work to limit it, but it is not an excuse for not paying taxes.

And for the democrat haters among you it was Reagan who started the giveaway to the wealthy (by way of mortgaging the future) and Bush who doubled the national debt in six years. These are facts. Incontrovertible facts. Like Obama's birth certificate.

But if you hate government and taxes so much you might want to move to Somalia where you can breathe free.

bob2356 says

The economy grew in the 90’s because of the revolution in computers and the crash of oil prices.

and also the increasing import of goods from China. In 1990 nothing was from China, but by 2000 everything was.

1990 - $15B in imports, 2000 - $100B (6X expansion), 2010 - $364B (3.6X)

pretty good deal for us to have all this wealth hit us without having to pay for it.

yet.

bob2356 says

Of course you will just change your definition not moving the dollar much, because the duck always has to be right no matter how much he has to dance around to do it.

Congratulations Bob. You (along with just about everyone else) have figured the Ducky boy out for what he really is.

RayAmerica says

Hi Bob … Churchill once said: “It is futile to argue with a man that is irrational.” Have you noticed I usually don’t bother answering your posts? The aforementioned quote should give you a hint as to why that is.

Hi Ray, please explain how a simple statement of fact is irrational other than in your alice in wonderland alternative reality where everyone to the left of hitler and franco are flaming liberals out to destroy america. As a slightly right of center moderate I have to say being called irrational by you is a mark of the highest honor. I will treasure it.

It's good that with maturity you are learning to heed the prophetic words of mark twain.

"It is a far better thing to remain silent and appear to be a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

bob2356 says

Of course you did took me at my word, in this instance.

I think you need to return to school. You need more learnin.

Do you think this couldn't happen here? Guess again.

http://www.businessinsider.com/irish-bombshell-government-raids-private-pensions-to-pay-for-jobs-program-2011-5

@Ray

>"a short book by Chalmers Johnson; “Dismantling of Empire: America’s Last Best Hope.”

OK . I have skimmed parts of it... perhaps I should read it fully.

Johnson's book is a good one in that it illustrates how America really is an empire , in spite of the fact it makes no such official claim, and that it has spread itself far too thin for it to continue. The massive costs involved in financing our colonialism and military will bankrupt us in the end. The only exception I would have with his book is that Johnson consistently calls for merely shifting these costs from the military, etc. into our own social programs. I firmly believe that our nation is doomed economically if we don't make massive cuts in the areas that he recommends along with our expenditures on all things the government provides. At least Johnson's book brings up issues that very few are talking about.

http://morejobsnottaxes.com/

Soon unions will be extorting even more taxes on local level from the working class. Not looking forward to a day when CTA can levi taxes independently from the state.

"Soon unions will be extorting even more taxes on local level from the working class. Not looking forward to a day when CTA can levi taxes independently from the state."

If your going to make aubsurd statements liek that, can you not site websites that are nothing more than corporate front groups? Yeah, unions are responsible for all of the budget wies. Ignore the fact that California has a massive illegal immirant population.

HousingWatcher says

If your going to make aubsurd statements liek that, can you not site websites that are nothing more than corporate front groups? Yeah, unions are responsible for all of the budget wies. Ignore the fact that California has a massive illegal immirant population.

Illegal immigrants are not the once who will be levying taxes, SB653 allows localities create their own taxes. Just because there are many corporations that are against SB653 does not mean SB653 is right. I am a part owner of a corporation, most businesses are a form of a corporation, thats what America is. It's the only way to be protected from the sue-happy schmucks.

FYI here:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SB_653/20112012/

The best solution to the problem is to encourage economic activity that increases the value of capital. The increase of productivity via innovation should be encouraged, and exporting of innovation should be discouraged. Taxation should focus on consumption and less on capital.
Let South Korea pay our army to be there, or leave. Inform China that because it is arming N. Korea, and this military threat costs us a ton of dough to protect South Korea, we immediately will impose a tariff on China goods equal to 2x the cost of our military protection of South Korea.
Let Germany pay our army to be there, or leave.
Extract the 285 trillion cubic feet of gas under the USA and go after the oil off California, Florida, and in Alaska.
Tax earnings for social security, no limit.
Change our social security to a Chile style true pension.
Outlaw nonsense like "cash for clunkers" tax credits for buying houses, etc.

"Change our social security to a Chile style true pension."

You support a pension system put in place by a murderous dictator?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/angle-copy-chile-and-pinochet-to-privatize-social-security.php

"SB653 allows localities create their own taxes."

Which they already do now. Like school taxes. Property taxes.

HousingWatcher says

“SB653 allows localities create their own taxes.”
Which they already do now. Like school taxes. Property taxes.

They currently cannot create more taxes such as income taxes, taxes on goods and services. This bill wouldn't be up for a vote if it did nothing new.

RayAmerica says

Hitler had a “miracle” economy based entirely on that fraud John Maynard Keynes’ false theory of economics.

Just curious-what exactly do you find fraudulent in the theory? You're not alone in that opinion... Please be specific. See if you can explain it without the use of insults--try something new.

tatupu70 says

Just curious-what exactly do you find fraudulent in the theory? You’re not alone in that opinion… Please be specific.

First, Keynesian economics fails to understand the necessary natural forces in an economy, and therefore attempts to manipulate those forces by the infusion or removal of money from the economy through a variety of means. Economies periodically need to be cleansed of abuses, but with politics, which cannot be separated from Keynesian economics, this is nearly impossible. For example: let's say that an economy is naturally slowing after a prolonged economic expansion. During that expansion, confidence is running high, which further promotes more risk in the way of excessive borrowing that will be used by businesses to expand in order to keep up with the PERCEIVED future demand. During a boom period such as this, all kinds of abuses take place by lenders and borrowers alike (i.e. recent housing bust) because they feel there is "no end in sight" for their prosperity. However, as is always, another business cycle kicks into gear and (for a variety of reasons) the economy begins to slow. If allowed to take its natural course, the economy will go into a recession, which will naturally cleanse the system of the past abuses, and the economy will typically recover to start the slow, natural expansion all over again. Instead of allowing this natural, cleansing process to proceed, the Keynesian (and the administration) determines that the business cycle can be suspended with the infusion of "new" money by lowering interest rates. Why? In order to keep the economy humming along (with all its abuses) during the current administrations term in office. (Nothing spells quicker doom for a leader of a nation than a prolonged, economic downturn with high unemployment, i.e. deep recession). As the economy continues to slide, the Keynesian continues to lower interest rates in order to artificially prop up the falling economy. Japan is the perfect example of this; after a long recession and the real estate bubble, etc. Japan's central bank eventually lowered interest rates to 0%. The economy still did not recover and the recession was therefore prolonged even longer due to the fact that the very abuses that CAUSED the downturn in the first place, remained and were further expanded. In short, Keynesian Economics foolishly attempts to manipulate the natural forces of a free market, which, in the long run, makes the economy that much weaker. The USA is following Japan in lock step fashion. By doing so, we are debasing our currency, increasing our exposure to insurmountable debt, encouraging continued reckless economic behavior, while not solving anything in the process. I could go on, but will stop here .... Does that answer your question?

Ray--

You don't really understand Keynesian economics. The point is to level off the booms and the busts. Keynesians don't desire to suspend the business cycle--they want to lessen the severity of the booms and busts. A Keynesian would act to prevent the the abuses you speak of during a boom period...

There is nothing artifical about lowering interest rates during a recession. Interest rates will naturally be low--there is little demand for capital (loans). "Interest rates" in a generic sense aren't set by the Fed anyway.

You talk a lot about cleansing and natural forces. What exactly do you mean? It's usually just a matter of reducing inventories. There's not a mysterious puppet master working behind the scense...

Let me ask you this--you seem to think that business cycles are inevitable. Why? Why do we have to have booms and busts? Don't you agree that the frequency and severity of booms and busts has decreased over time?

Ray, for socalists, democrats, progressives, liberals (you know those with documented brain damage), taxes are never high enough. Ask any of them this question: "How much tax is enough?" You'll never get an intelligent answer.

Todays book: Liberty Defined, Dr. Ron Paul

Taxes are high enough when they can cover government expenditures (i.e. not run a deficit). One can make allowances for short term exceptions during recessions and wars, as long as any shortfall is covered by taxing enough to generate a surplus afterwards. So obviously taxes are NOT high enough, and haven't been for a long time. Anything else is just rationalization.

bdrasin says

Taxes are high enough when they can cover government expenditures (i.e. not run a deficit). One can make allowances for short term exceptions during recessions and wars, as long as any shortfall is covered by taxing enough to generate a surplus afterwards. So obviously taxes are NOT high enough, and haven’t been for a long time. Anything else is just rationalization.

I agree. If taxes actually covered what we spend, then we never would have allowed spending to get so far out of hand. This is so obviously true, especially since progressive tax rates hit the rich the hardest and they are the ones who make the government spending decisions.

The corrupt death spiral "borrow and spend" trajectory we are on can be traced back to the 1980s. But hey, don't worry, be happy.

When famous republicans said "deficits don't matter" what they really meant is that they don't matter to them personally, in this lifetime.