Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

First, spending must be decreased. This thread doesn't address spending, though it is of critical importance, in fact of more importance than how the government gains revenue. But both revenue allocation and spending cuts are both rather broad issues, particularly the latter. And so, I will only address what I believe to be the ideal means of taxation.

As you may know, I support the land-value tax philosophically, but not in terms of policy. I support the land-value tax based upon the arguments made by Henry George and alluded to by John Locke and John Stuart Mill -- that is, assuming all property is legitimate based upon its combination with labor, land and natural resources must be inherently communally owned. I oppose the land-value tax because, being that it's a tax on land value, it is rather close to being a property tax, which has some rather negative effects. By taxing the value of land, it is not much different than taxing the land based upon the quantity rather than strictly its value. Even though 10 acres in the midwest may be cheaper than 1 city block in New York City, nevertheless, in general, the value is correlated with its size. Two city blocks in New York City cost more than just one and 10 acres in the midwest are of greater value than merely 5. Thus, though it taxes the value of land, it acts in many ways as a property tax.

Because the land value tax is enacted equally, unlike with traditional property taxes, this means relatively little for the average person, who is not a business-owner. But for business-owners, it's a tragedy, because through having the total tax burden shifted upon them, it creates a large disincentive to buy land. The cost of rent would not merely be "traded," from the private sector to the public sector as some allege, because taxes inherently built on top of any item's value. It is impossible to tax something and not expect its price to rise. If realtors could not collect rent and business-owners could not afford it (or it thus created a massive disincentive to expand), the entire real estate industry would collapse and the economy as a whole would be severely hurt. Despite its ethical implications, in the absence of clear land-value ownership, no economy can remain stable. This would most greatly affect realtors, urban businesses, and farmers, all of which largely affect us all.

Furthermore, I also doubt that the LVT can account for enough revenue. Even though some may say, "Well, then that s*cks for the government -- they'll have to cut spending," creating massive budget shortfalls historically has never forced the government to cut spending. Hence, despite being Socialists, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.

However, despite opposing the LVT, because I recognize that empirical evidence from economics outweighs any philosophical conjecture and because an increased LVT is undoubtedly good, I support periodically raising the land-value tax as we cut spending and carefully viewing its economic effects.

But I am pragmatic regarding taxation and this is an unoriginal view. As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, taxation purely for sake of revenue is unjust yet it is inevitable.

John Stuart Mill wrote: These considerations may seem at first sight to condemn the selection of stimulants as special subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue. But it must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable; that in most countries it is necessary that a considerable part of that taxation should be indirect; that the State, therefore, cannot help imposing penalties, which to some persons may be prohibitory, on the use of some articles of consumption.
In this respect, Mill's utilitarianism outweighed his regard for negative liberty and I agree. Because a well-funded state is the foundation for negative liberty. If, in fact, the State has no other means to account for negative liberty except through unjust taxation, it is better for us to be unjustly taxed with liberty than to face purely justifiable taxation and live in Anarchy.

And so, I am more accepting of taxation for which there is little justification. I am more concerned with how the taxation is used than how it is allocated. What is important is that it is used to positive ends that benefit us equally, in principle. By "in principle," I mean that not each person will receive equal services back for fees paid. If that were the case, Anarchy could provide better than the government. Yet Anarchy cannot. We are, however, treated equally by having our liberty protected from unforeseen circumstances. A person may pay for the police and never use them, yet that doesn't change the fact that the police were their security and could be called forth in times of danger. A person may pay for our electoral system and never vote, yet it does not change the fact that the electoral system is theirs and they can choose to vote. And so, too, a person may pay for the welfare system and never receive a penny, yet that doesn't change the fact that the welfare system would provide for them as well in times of need.

Now, one could argue, "Why should I need to pay for the police, the electoral system, or the welfare system if I receive nothing?" You do receive something: a guarantee. A guarantee that you shall have freedom from death, violence, fear, oppression, and poverty. And thus, it is this positive liberty through which negative liberty is established for all equally. One may not receive services in the meantime, but if such were required than we would have to accept Anarchy.

I further justify means of taxation with little or no justification by the fact that all traditional property rights are founded upon historical theft. We cannot deny that property rights were, in fact, violated throughout history, many, many times. Humanity, in its early history, and even on through today has been rather barbaric, having no regard for liberty. Well, then, if our inherited property has been handed down from thieves to their descendants, how could we possibly claim that any manner of property is legitimate? We do not know specifically how property rights today are being inappropriately upheld, but we do know that 99% of us who own property have been affected, in some way, by historical theft. Yet we claim what we have is ours.

Is it not likely that we argue this based purely upon our social situations? The rich demand that property rights be upheld because they are rich and the poor demand that property rights be violence because they are poor.

I argue, therefore, that it is best that we all be treated equally, in terms of our relative circumstances, as individuals. We cannot allow for true "equal opportunity," because such would be grossly economically inefficient. And thus, we should have equal opportunity to the extent that free market principles will allow.

Based upon this, I argue, in addition to a substantial land-value tax, a negative progressive tax upon individual income, with little tax exemptions.

I argue for a negative tax, that is, requiring that citizens pay a ridiculously high tax and then, the poor receive a rebate which, for the poor, is higher than the tax paid (the FairTax operates this way, and so you could call it a "negative consumption tax").

I argue for a progressive tax because progressive taxation is individualist. Flat taxation, whether flat sum or flat percent, assumes (in Collectivist fashion) that we are all the same. My $5,000 is not the same as your $5,000 nor is my 10% the same as your 10%. Therefore, why should we both be demanded that same amount? Economists recognize opportunity cost as an essential part of determining value and so, it must be accounted for in any taxation. Truly "equal taxation," is determined by having equal impacts on people's lives, not by having equal numbers, mathematically. If there are not equal impacts on people's lives, the equal numbers are arbitrary, and thus, flat taxes are, in essence, regressive.

Furthermore, the progressivity of the tax I argue for is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, but determined precisely by opportunity cost: First, the base revenue-neutral rate would be determined. From there, the progressivity of the income tax would be determined by the differences in average consumption per each tax bracket. In this way, it is a progressive tax, but its progressivity has a rational basis. By setting it according to average consumption, you are making it so that each person, whether rich or poor, foregoes equal amount of opportunities as a result of taxation. And so, despite the fact that the numbers don't match up, the impacts upon their lives do match up.

I also believe that far more tax brackets must be created. To my knowledge, the largest tax bracket is currently $300,000 and higher. Why should a person who makes $300 million get to pay the same tax as someone who pays $300,000? The people currently being screwed the most by our current taxation system are neither the adversely poor nor the wealthy elite, but rather, the moderately wealthy. I suspect that the Republicans have continued to exploit the moderately wealthy, while continually giving them little tax breaks every few years, in order to foster a strong political base. In similar respects, they have appealed to the Christian Right while passing relatively little legislation regarding Christianity or morality.

And finally, I argue that tax-exemptions should be (mostly) eliminated. For one thing, many charities are corrupt and are nothing more than businesses which make little profit, but just enough to pay their employees. Each charity should be required to not only file with the IRS, but to be economically translucent about where the money is going, in order to be tax-exempt. This should also apply to religious organizations as well. I see no reason why the right to religious expression should take any precedence over the right to political expression. In fact, the Constitution states that we shall make "no law," regarding religion. By creating a tax exemption for it, you are creating a law.

[gavnook]

Nathyn wrote: Because a well-funded state is the foundation for negative liberty.

I reject this premise.


Nathyn wrote: Now, one could argue, "Why should I need to pay for the police, the electoral system, or the welfare system if I receive nothing?" You do
receive something: a guarantee. A guarantee that you shall have freedom from death, violence, fear, oppression, and poverty.

There are two angles to attack this veiw from. One is that it is not possible for the state to provide such a guarantee. It may make the promise, but even if it means well it simply can't keep good on such promises. And, state officials basically never mean well. They may, to some extent, but it's highly unlikely that they are anywhere near as concerned with your well-being as you are. In the US, our government is constantly trying to scare us. Throughout the world, governments are to blame for the great majority of violent deaths in known history. The only thing a government can do for poverty is subsidize it.

The other angle is to simply ask, what if I don't want such a guarantee?

[Nathyn]

gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: Because a well-funded state is the foundation for negative liberty.

I reject this premise.
Anarchy can't provide for liberty and so, government must do it. If government must do it, they require funds, as the military, police, etc, even the systems you consider most basic could not exist without taxes.

gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: Now, one could argue, "Why should I need to pay for the police, the electoral system, or the welfare system if I receive nothing?" You do
receive something: a guarantee. A guarantee that you shall have freedom from death, violence, fear, oppression, and poverty.
There are two angles to attack this veiw from. One is that it is not possible for the state to provide such a guarantee. It may make the promise, but even if it means well it simply can't keep good on such promises. And, state officials basically never mean well. They may, to some extent, but it's highly unlikely that they are anywhere near as concerned with your well-being as you are. In the US, our government is constantly trying to scare us. Throughout the world, governments are to blame for the great majority of violent deaths in known history. The only thing a government can do for poverty is subsidize it.

The other angle is to simply ask, what if I don't want such a guarantee?
Both Anarchist arguments: 1) The government can never be trusted 2) Voluntariness is sacrosanct

To reply to #1, the government can keep good on their promises. Take, for instance, the social security system where people have been paid their due for over 70 years now. Purely because the government is often (if not inherently) corrupt does not diminish its authority to act when it is right. Government is evil purely as a result of human nature's combination with authority, not its particular institution. If such is established in the free market, there would be equal tyranny. Furthermore, it is with principles, not people or institutions, that authority rests. If the government is correct, if a certain policy is beneficial, then they have the authority to enact it.

#2, voluntariness is often at odds with others' liberty. There are numerous examples you should be able to think of. Obviously, one could not be allowed to own nuclear weapons or develop biological weapons without restriction. The social contract is unique, in that it lays the foundation for liberty, hence the traditional rules of contract don't apply. Thus, it affects us all. No rational person would reject the social contract, which requires that we occasionally do things we don't want to do. A person cannot reject the social contract out of their own circumstances. because that rejection isn't merely a breaking of a contract between two parties, but rather, it is a foolish act which threatens their liberty and everyone else's. If, for instance, a person refuses to pay taxes at all, then that threatens their security and ours by not allowing there to be a police or military.

If a person doesn't want such a guarantee, the details should be further explained to them. If, in fact, the government is unjust, then revolt is justifiable. If, however, the government's policy is in the right (or violent revolt doesn't outweigh minor injustice), then the government has the authority to act.

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: I support the land-value tax based upon the arguments made by Henry George and alluded to by John Locke and John Stuart Mill -- that is, assuming all property is legitimate based upon its combination with labor, land and natural resources must be inherently communally owned.
Good. That's key.

Quote: I oppose the land-value tax because, being that it's a tax on land value, it is rather close to being a property tax, which has some rather negative effects.
Oh no. Here we go again.

Quote: By taxing the value of land, it is not much different than taxing the land based upon the quantity rather than strictly its value. Even though 10 acres in the midwest may be cheaper than 1 city block in New York City, nevertheless, in general, the value is correlated with its size. Two city blocks in New York City cost more than just one and 10 acres in the midwest are of greater value than merely 5.
Well of course the value has some correlation with size; this very fact acts to increase efficiency by keeping land use to the minimum necessary. But even still, it is not true that this correlation is absolute. Even in Manhattan alone, the per-acre value of land varies tremendously. The land in Time Square, for example, is likely valued much higher than land a few blocks away.

Quote: Thus, though it taxes the value of land, it acts in many ways as a property tax.
Thus? How does this follow from your premise? The fact that in both taxes are affected by land size is only one partial similarity.

Quote: Because the land value tax is enacted equally, unlike with traditional property taxes, this means relatively little for the average person, who is not a business-owner. But for business-owners, it's a tragedy, because through having the total tax burden shifted upon them, it creates a large disincentive to buy land.
There's no burden being shifted here. Business owners already pay the tax in the form of rent.

Quote: The cost of rent would not merely be "traded," from the private sector to the public sector as some allege, because taxes inherently built on top of any item's value. It is impossible to tax something and not expect its price to rise.
If the price was increased, the demand would simply go down. There's no way to increase the price, because the supply is fixed. The rent of land is naturally equal to the amount that production will bear.

Quote: If realtors could not collect rent and business-owners could not afford it (or it thus created a massive disincentive to expand), the entire real estate industry would collapse and the economy as a whole would be severely hurt. Despite its ethical implications, in the absence of clear land-value ownership, no economy can remain stable. This would most greatly affect realtors, urban businesses, and farmers, all of which largely affect us all.
Well the tax is not fixed; it's not a property tax where you charge so much per acre. The value is determined by how much people are willing to pay for use of the land; it's value reflects the difference in the value of the land in question and the value of land not in use. If businesses "couldn't afford" the appraised value, the value would necessarily go down until they could. No tax can be collected on unused land, so this would have to be the case.

Think, for a moment, about a lot in Chicago. Say we have the LVT system, and the rent on the land was determined to be 100,000 per year. Now, if this value was too much, as you worry, no one would rent the land. In order for rent to be collected on the land, the value would have to be reduced until it was commensurate with the demand for that land.

Quote: Furthermore, I also doubt that the LVT can account for enough revenue. Even though some may say, "Well, then that s*cks for the government -- they'll have to cut spending," creating massive budget shortfalls historically has never forced the government to cut spending. Hence, despite being Socialists, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.
Well, again, there's no reason why the LVT would have to be a "single tax." Obviously, that would be preferable, but if what you say is true, I believe other taxes could be retained until the point came where they were no longer necessary.

Quote: However, despite opposing the LVT, because I recognize that empirical evidence from economics outweighs any philosophical conjecture and because an increased LVT is undoubtedly good, I support periodically raising the land-value tax as we cut spending and carefully viewing its economic effects.
We must, in my opinion. If your society has a gross injustice at such a fundamental level, failure can be the only result. No amount of charity, welfare, or progressive taxes will ever be able to make up for such a basic error; in fact, many of these serve only to make matters worse.

Free trade is the ultimate condition of commerce, and a monopoly on land makes free trade fundamentally impossible, by make a class of land-owners, and a class of land-renters (or, to use more inflammatory terms, lords and serfs).

Quote: But I am pragmatic regarding taxation and this is an unoriginal view. As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, taxation purely for sake of revenue is unjust yet it is inevitable.

John Stuart Mill wrote: These considerations may seem at first sight to condemn the selection of stimulants as special subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue. But it must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable; that in most countries it is necessary that a considerable part of that taxation should be indirect; that the State, therefore, cannot help imposing penalties, which to some persons may be prohibitory, on the use of some articles of consumption.
In this respect, Mill's utilitarianism outweighed his regard for negative liberty and I agree. Because a well-funded state is the foundation for negative liberty. If, in fact, the State has no other means to account for negative liberty except through unjust taxation, it is better for us to be unjustly taxed with liberty than to face purely justifiable taxation and live in Anarchy.
So, in other words, the state has no means to preserve justice, save violating it? What good is the government, then? You get to choose what your robber's hair looks like?

Quote: And so, I am more accepting of taxation for which there is little justification. I am more concerned with how the taxation is used than how it is allocated. What is important is that it is used to positive ends that benefit us equally, in principle. By "in principle," I mean that not each person will receive equal services back for fees paid. If that were the case, Anarchy could provide better than the government. Yet Anarchy cannot. We are, however, treated equally by having our liberty protected from unforeseen circumstances. A person may pay for the police and never use them, yet that doesn't change the fact that the police were their security and could be called forth in times of danger. A person may pay for our electoral system and never vote, yet it does not change the fact that the electoral system is theirs and they can choose to vote. And so, too, a person may pay for the welfare system and never receive a penny, yet that doesn't change the fact that the welfare system would provide for them as well in times of need.

Now, one could argue, "Why should I need to pay for the police, the electoral system, or the welfare system if I receive nothing?" You do receive something: a guarantee. A guarantee that you shall have freedom from death, violence, fear, oppression, and poverty. And thus, it is this positive liberty through which negative liberty is established for all equally. One may not receive services in the meantime, but if such were required than we would have to accept Anarchy.

I further justify means of taxation with little or no justification by the fact that all traditional property rights are founded upon historical theft. We cannot deny that property rights were, in fact, violated throughout history, many, many times. Humanity, in its early history, and even on through today has been rather barbaric, having no regard for liberty. Well, then, if our inherited property has been handed down from thieves to their descendants, how could we possibly claim that any manner of property is legitimate? We do not know specifically how property rights today are being inappropriately upheld, but we do know that 99% of us who own property have been affected, in some way, by historical theft. Yet we claim what we have is ours.
I don't see how the history of wealth needs to be taken into account to protect property rights in the current.

Quote: Is it not likely that we argue this based purely upon our social situations? The rich demand that property rights be upheld because they are rich and the poor demand that property rights be violence because they are poor.
Irrelevant. Property rights are vital for the function of society. Their protection, therefore, is paramount.

Quote: I argue, therefore, that it is best that we all be treated equally, in terms of our relative circumstances, as individuals. We cannot allow for true "equal opportunity," because such would be grossly economically inefficient. And thus, we should have equal opportunity to the extent that free market principles will allow.

Based upon this, I argue, in addition to a substantial land-value tax, a negative progressive tax upon individual income, with little tax exemptions.
You propose to arbitrarily punish success.

Quote: I argue for a negative tax, that is, requiring that citizens pay a ridiculously high tax and then, the poor receive a rebate which, for the poor, is higher than the tax paid (the FairTax operates this way, and so you could call it a "negative consumption tax").
You propose to subsidize the unproductive. That usually results in a wealth sink when it's tried on industry, and I believe it's fairly obvious it would act as a wealth sink every bit as much, if not more, if tried on society.

Quote: I argue for a progressive tax because progressive taxation is individualist. Flat taxation, whether flat sum or flat percent, assumes (in Collectivist fashion) that we are all the same. My $5,000 is not the same as your $5,000 nor is my 10% the same as your 10%. Therefore, why should we both be demanded that same amount?
Because its fair. If the government is going to take 10% of my s**t, you'd be wronged if it took 20% of yours.

Quote: Economists recognize opportunity cost as an essential part of determining value and so, it must be accounted for in any taxation. Truly "equal taxation," is determined by having equal impacts on people's lives, not by having equal numbers, mathematically.
That may be true to some extent, but there's no way to quantify that.

Quote: If there are not equal impacts on people's lives, the equal numbers are arbitrary, and thus, flat taxes are, in essence, regressive.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Even you'd have to admit that, no matter what, the impact of taxes on any individual's life is somewhat arbitrary. But if you have a fixed percentage which everyone is forced to pay, there's nothing whatever arbitrary about the number. You propose to make it arbitrary. If I am so productive that I command a very high salary, why should I be punished? If I am so unproductive, why should I receive incentives to remain so?

Quote: Furthermore, the progressivity of the tax I argue for is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, but determined precisely by opportunity cost: First, the base revenue-neutral rate would be determined. From there, the progressivity of the income tax would be determined by the differences in average consumption per each tax bracket. In this way, it is a progressive tax, but its progressivity has a rational basis.
Rational perhaps, but very much arbitrary.

Quote: By setting it according to average consumption, you are making it so that each person, whether rich or poor, foregoes equal amount of opportunities as a result of taxation. And so, despite the fact that the numbers don't match up, the impacts upon their lives do match up.
You could try anyways, but you'd ultimately fail because people are not averages, and the fact that you've failed to take into account the impact of your taxation scheme upon society.

Quote: I also believe that far more tax brackets must be created. To my knowledge, the largest tax bracket is currently $300,000 and higher. Why should a person who makes $300 million get to pay the same tax as someone who pays $300,000? The people currently being screwed the most by our current taxation system are neither the adversely poor nor the wealthy elite, but rather, the moderately wealthy. I suspect that the Republicans have continued to exploit the moderately wealthy, while continually giving them little tax breaks every few years, in order to foster a strong political base. In similar respects, they have appealed to the Christian Right while passing relatively little legislation regarding Christianity or morality.
Yeah, welcome to the joys of arbitrary taxation! You wanted brackets, you got 'em. Your exact scheme will never see the light of day in Washington; compromises will necessarily be made, and entrenched interests will use influence to benefit themselves. That's a huge problem with progressive taxation.

In fact, it's a huge problem with income taxes in general. With an income tax, the government basically owns your money, and decides how much it will give back to you. That's bulls**t. And realize, even if your scheme were introduced, agruments that one group of people or another were getting screwed will continue for eternity, and there'd never be any objetive way to even know if their claims were legitimate.

Quote: And finally, I argue that tax-exemptions should be (mostly) eliminated. For one thing, many charities are corrupt and are nothing more than businesses which make little profit, but just enough to pay their employees. Each charity should be required to not only file with the IRS, but to be economically translucent about where the money is going, in order to be tax-exempt. This should also apply to religious organizations as well. I see no reason why the right to religious expression should take any precedence over the right to political expression. In fact, the Constitution states that we shall make "no law," regarding religion. By creating a tax exemption for it, you are creating a law.
I've thought about this myself. Never to the point where I've attained any strong opinion one way or another, though. This much I'll say: that's probably a fairly minor factor in the overall scheme of things.

[ubikk]

Quote: The other angle is to simply ask, what if I don't want such a guarantee?

Then you either use your Constitutional rights to try and change the laws, or you move someplace where your taxes are lower. Otherwise, you pretty much have to pay the going rate.

[Nathyn]

Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: I support the land-value tax based upon the arguments made by Henry George and alluded to by John Locke and John Stuart Mill -- that is, assuming all property is legitimate based upon its combination with labor, land and natural resources must be inherently communally owned.
Good. That's key.

Quote: I oppose the land-value tax because, being that it's a tax on land value, it is rather close to being a property tax, which has some rather negative effects.
Oh no. Here we go again.

Quote: By taxing the value of land, it is not much different than taxing the land based upon the quantity rather than strictly its value. Even though 10 acres in the midwest may be cheaper than 1 city block in New York City, nevertheless, in general, the value is correlated with its size. Two city blocks in New York City cost more than just one and 10 acres in the midwest are of greater value than merely 5.
Well of course the value has some correlation with size; this very fact acts to increase efficiency by keeping land use to the minimum necessary. But even still, it is not true that this correlation is absolute. Even in Manhattan alone, the per-acre value of land varies tremendously. The land in Time Square, for example, is likely valued much higher than land a few blocks away.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Thus, though it taxes the value of land, it acts in many ways as a property tax.
Thus? How does this follow from your premise? The fact that in both taxes are affected by land size is only one partial similarity.
And so, because of that similarity, the LVT acts like a property tax. With the LVT, you're taxing the land value, not the land size (or property value). But land value is partially a function of land size and thus, to that extent, you are taxing land size. Thus, the negative effects of taxes on land size would be present in the LVT, only to a lesser extent.

If I can explain this more clearly: To determine land value, you take into account various factors. Among such factors, there are land size and the current market demand. To determine property value, you take the land value, add the value of improvements, then tax both. The LVT is a property tax with the value of improvements just sliced off, not being taxed (and so, it's the LVT). However, the negative consequences from property taxes are partially caused by taxing land, not just by taxing improvements. The proof is this: If you were to tax simply the value of the improvements to the land rather than the total property value, the negative effects associated with the property tax would increase if you added a land-value tax on top of the land-improvement tax. And similarly, if you took a property tax and stripped away the taxation for improvements on the land, leaving only a land-value tax, the negative consequences associated with property taxes would be only partially decreased. This is because both aspects of the property tax, the tax on land and the tax on improvements, create a disincentive to buy and develop land. The LVT is a disincentive to buy land and the other aspect to the property tax, the tax on improvements, is a disincentive to develop the land. And so, the LVT would still, to some extent, create a disincentive for farmers and urban business-owners to purchase land.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Because the land value tax is enacted equally, unlike with traditional property taxes, this means relatively little for the average person, who is not a business-owner. But for business-owners, it's a tragedy, because through having the total tax burden shifted upon them, it creates a large disincentive to buy land.
There's no burden being shifted here. Business owners already pay the tax in the form of rent.
Business owners pay rent to those whom own the property. Taxation would be added on top of that. The government would have to seize all land in the United States if they wanted to enact a land-value tax, expecting it to replace landlords' rent, rather than simply being added on top.

Similarly, the government would have to nationalize the oil industry if they are going to tax oil and not expect an increase in prices. Land is no different, because oil is of fixed supply and yet its price can still be drastically altered. Land is different from a philosophical and moral standpoint, in terms of its unique relation to property. But from an economic standpoint, land is a good like any other. And so, if you levy taxes on it, it won't just magically keep the pre-existing price.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: The cost of rent would not merely be "traded," from the private sector to the public sector as some allege, because taxes inherently built on top of any item's value. It is impossible to tax something and not expect its price to rise.

Quote: If realtors could not collect rent and business-owners could not afford it (or it thus created a massive disincentive to expand), the entire real estate industry would collapse and the economy as a whole would be severely hurt. Despite its ethical implications, in the absence of clear land-value ownership, no economy can remain stable. This would most greatly affect realtors, urban businesses, and farmers, all of which largely affect us all.
Well the tax is not fixed; it's not a property tax where you charge so much per acre. The value is determined by how much people are willing to pay for use of the land; it's value reflects the difference in the value of the land in question and the value of land not in use. If businesses "couldn't afford" the appraised value, the value would necessarily go down until they could. No tax can be collected on unused land, so this would have to be the case.

Think, for a moment, about a lot in Chicago. Say we have the LVT system, and the rent on the land was determined to be 100,000 per year. Now, if this value was too much, as you worry, no one would rent the land. In order for rent to be collected on the land, the value would have to be reduced until it was commensurate with the demand for that land.
This is contradictory and distinctily libertarian, in that you automatically assume a perfect equilibrium. You assert that the supply is fixed and that taxation would merely cause demand to go down, while keeping prices stable. I agree. However, demand would only go down in response to rising prices. If prices remained the same, there would be no reason for demand to decrease. I assume that what you mean is that, prices would rise, demand would go down, then there would be an equilibrium reached between the price increase and the demand (where, in your view, it would be back at its original price and original demand). This belief in a mystical perfect equilibrium aka "the invisible hand," is a rather bold and unfounded assumption. I would say that this claim should be empirically verified before merely assumed. Even so, I doubt that such an equilibrium would be reached exactly at the point where it started. If you tax 50% of all land value, realtors can only collect on 50%. If you tax 90% of all land value, realtors can only collect on 10%. And if you tax 100% of all land value, realtors can't collect hardly at all. And our economy couldn't exist without clearly established ownership of land.

Secondly, you concede that demand for land would go down (though, if not in response to increasing prices, then what?). But at the same time, while saying demand would go down, you then go on to say that economic productivity would not go down. How can demand for land decrease while still having productivity remain stable? With regards to your example regarding Chicago, if the rent was too high, I wouldn't pay it, nor would most people. Instead, we'd all end up living in pitched tents because the 100% tax on land value greatly increased our rent. If the rent was too high, its price (not its value) would have to be reduced for us to rent. And so, unless either the tax is decreased or the realtors cuts his price for rent, we will not pay for the land.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Furthermore, I also doubt that the LVT can account for enough revenue. Even though some may say, "Well, then that s*cks for the government -- they'll have to cut spending," creating massive budget shortfalls historically has never forced the government to cut spending. Hence, despite being Socialists, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.
Well, again, there's no reason why the LVT would have to be a "single tax." Obviously, that would be preferable, but if what you say is true, I believe other taxes could be retained until the point came where they were no longer necessary.
I support a stronger LVT, but I'm skeptical of it and want to see demonstrations of it. I'm not going to buy the argument that we should just implement a single 100% LVT to replace all existing taxes.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: However, despite opposing the LVT, because I recognize that empirical evidence from economics outweighs any philosophical conjecture and because an increased LVT is undoubtedly good, I support periodically raising the land-value tax as we cut spending and carefully viewing its economic effects.
We must, in my opinion. If your society has a gross injustice at such a fundamental level, failure can be the only result. No amount of charity, welfare, or progressive taxes will ever be able to make up for such a basic error; in fact, many of these serve only to make matters worse.

Free trade is the ultimate condition of commerce, and a monopoly on land makes free trade fundamentally impossible, by make a class of land-owners, and a class of land-renters (or, to use more inflammatory terms, lords and serfs).
Appropriate policy is a combination of both economic efficiency and liberty. I've been reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls and I agree with his method of applying indifference curves to economic efficiency and liberty as an appropriate means of weighing the two. Economic efficiency at the expense of liberty is evil and collectivist. Liberty at the expense of economic efficiency, as noble and individualist as it is, is Anarchy. Hence, it is meaningless. And so, there must be a balance between liberty and economic efficiency. This is true for liberty and security as well.

And so, though liberty and justice are to be valued, an unjust tax may be levied if it is to rectify an even worse injustice, such as, for instance, a grossly underfunded government or an economy on the brink of collapse.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: But I am pragmatic regarding taxation and this is an unoriginal view. As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, taxation purely for sake of revenue is unjust yet it is inevitable.

John Stuart Mill wrote: These considerations may seem at first sight to condemn the selection of stimulants as special subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue. But it must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable; that in most countries it is necessary that a considerable part of that taxation should be indirect; that the State, therefore, cannot help imposing penalties, which to some persons may be prohibitory, on the use of some articles of consumption.
In this respect, Mill's utilitarianism outweighed his regard for negative liberty and I agree. Because a well-funded state is the foundation for negative liberty. If, in fact, the State has no other means to account for negative liberty except through unjust taxation, it is better for us to be unjustly taxed with liberty than to face purely justifiable taxation and live in Anarchy.
So, in other words, the state has no means to preserve justice, save violating it? What good is the government, then? You get to choose what your robber's hair looks like?
"Justice," is not necessarily absolute, so black-and-white. There are mitigating circumstances where a certain act which is normally wrong may be permissible, such as if it is to avoid a certain other evil. For instance, theft and murder are both objectively immoral acts. We agree that it is wrong to steal or murder. And yet it would be permissible to steal to avoid starvation or to murder out of self-defense, or some other uncontrollable compulsion. Now, libertarians in the past have argued to the contrary, refusing to see such mitigating circumstances. But tell me: if you were on the brink of starvation, would you steal? Would you kill out of self-defense? And, if there were other circumstances where you held no control over yourself (such as being asleep, intoxicated, or under the influence of strong emotion), would you expect yourself to be held responsible? I wouldn't nor can I conceive how any other rational person would. It is based on that, that stealing to avoid starvation and murder out of self-defense is permissible.

And similarly, the State has the authority to act for similar causes. The State has the authority to enact social welfare to avoid starvation and adverse poverty. And the State has the authority to levy taxes to pay for the police and military. And its citizens have the right to petition their government for such causes. Because though in general, social welfare and taxation are wrong, if the money is used to help the adversely poor and provide security, it benefits us all because, as an unspoken contract, it establishes those things for us (security, means of trade, freedom from poverty) if we were incapable of providing for them ourselves. In government, one's welfare and security is provided for far better than in Anarchy. This is true regardless of who you are, hence such restrictions are justifiable.

So, yes, you may call taxation "theft," but unjust taxation is preferable to a weak government or Anarchy. I am skeptical of Minarchism because what it amounts to is reverting our government to the size and scope of a provisional government (Iraq, Palestine, Somalia) yet expecting it to not teeter into total Anarchy.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: And so, I am more accepting of taxation for which there is little justification. I am more concerned with how the taxation is used than how it is allocated. What is important is that it is used to positive ends that benefit us equally, in principle. By "in principle," I mean that not each person will receive equal services back for fees paid. If that were the case, Anarchy could provide better than the government. Yet Anarchy cannot. We are, however, treated equally by having our liberty protected from unforeseen circumstances. A person may pay for the police and never use them, yet that doesn't change the fact that the police were their security and could be called forth in times of danger. A person may pay for our electoral system and never vote, yet it does not change the fact that the electoral system is theirs and they can choose to vote. And so, too, a person may pay for the welfare system and never receive a penny, yet that doesn't change the fact that the welfare system would provide for them as well in times of need.

Now, one could argue, "Why should I need to pay for the police, the electoral system, or the welfare system if I receive nothing?" You do receive something: a guarantee. A guarantee that you shall have freedom from death, violence, fear, oppression, and poverty. And thus, it is this positive liberty through which negative liberty is established for all equally. One may not receive services in the meantime, but if such were required than we would have to accept Anarchy.

I further justify means of taxation with little or no justification by the fact that all traditional property rights are founded upon historical theft. We cannot deny that property rights were, in fact, violated throughout history, many, many times. Humanity, in its early history, and even on through today has been rather barbaric, having no regard for liberty. Well, then, if our inherited property has been handed down from thieves to their descendants, how could we possibly claim that any manner of property is legitimate? We do not know specifically how property rights today are being inappropriately upheld, but we do know that 99% of us who own property have been affected, in some way, by historical theft. Yet we claim what we have is ours.
I don't see how the history of wealth needs to be taken into account to protect property rights in the current.
The history of wealth needs to be taken into account because rights are upheld by governments, not created by them. Property right is a natural right. And so, if a person labored for property (in Anarchy), had their property stolen, and then a government were established, the thief's possession would still remain illegitimate. It would also still be illegitimate for his descendants to inherit the value of the property. In other words, when governments are established, in order for them to uphold legitimate property rights, they must first be aware of who legitimately owns what. Yet, without a time-machine and near omniscience, we cannot be aware of such.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Is it not likely that we argue this based purely upon our social situations? The rich demand that property rights be upheld because they are rich and the poor demand that property rights be violence because they are poor.
Irrelevant. Property rights are vital for the function of society. Their protection, therefore, is paramount.
Hardly irrelevant. Demographically, most Liberals are poor and most Conservatives (and supporters of the free market) are wealthy.

I agree property rights are vital, but I disagree that their protection is "paramount." More basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion are far more importance. The reduction of these freedoms to being property rights is unfounded. Governments are just to the extent that they satisfy the desires of each citizen. A truly well-ordered government is one which pleases everybody. But, if property rights are placed at the utmost importance, then a government would inherently benefit the wealthy because protecting property rights means far more for the wealthy, whom have greater property. This is especially true being that financial success is a function primarily of capital. So, by protecting ownership of capital, you are making it so that the divide between the rich and poor is substantially increased. Yet a society with poor social mobility is just, because it is not a meritocracy, where each is valued equally. But rather, it is, as John Rawls says, a "natural aristocracy."

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: I argue, therefore, that it is best that we all be treated equally, in terms of our relative circumstances, as individuals. We cannot allow for true "equal opportunity," because such would be grossly economically inefficient. And thus, we should have equal opportunity to the extent that free market principles will allow.

Based upon this, I argue, in addition to a substantial land-value tax, a negative progressive tax upon individual income, with little tax exemptions.
You propose to arbitrarily punish success.
Hardly. I propose that taxation be imposed according to a balance between what's necessary for liberty to even exist (economic stability and security) and what's necessary for liberty. Such wouldn't be arbitrary, but with a progression based upon average levels of consumption, so that though people are not taxed with equal percentages, the taxation is, in reality, equal because it is the real life impact taxation has on people's lives which is important. Adjusting progressive taxation according to average consumption makes the impact entirely equal. This isn't arbitrary, nor is it punishing success. In fact, it encourages success. By having progressive taxation according to consumption, social mobility would be increased, so that the poor remain poor, only if they so choose, while the wealthy only remain wealthy if they continue to labor for it.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: I argue for a negative tax, that is, requiring that citizens pay a ridiculously high tax and then, the poor receive a rebate which, for the poor, is higher than the tax paid (the FairTax operates this way, and so you could call it a "negative consumption tax").
You propose to subsidize the unproductive. That usually results in a wealth sink when it's tried on industry, and I believe it's fairly obvious it would act as a wealth sink every bit as much, if not more, if tried on society.
I think there needs to be clarification between those who choose to be unproductive and those who don't have the basic resources to even be productive. Furthermore, your assumption also implies that the wealthy work more than the poor, yet the reverse is true. And so, I would argue the opposite: Establishing a system of taxation which favors the wealthy and hurts the poor arbitrarily punishes success and rewards unproductivity.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: I argue for a progressive tax because progressive taxation is individualist. Flat taxation, whether flat sum or flat percent, assumes (in Collectivist fashion) that we are all the same. My $5,000 is not the same as your $5,000 nor is my 10% the same as your 10%. Therefore, why should we both be demanded that same amount?
Because its fair. If the government is going to take 10% of my s**t, you'd be wronged if it took 20% of yours.
But my 10% and your 10% aren't the same. If you take 30% of a poor person's income, they might starve to death. If you take 30% of a wealthy person's income, they'd merely have to cut back their investment options and nothing more.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Economists recognize opportunity cost as an essential part of determining value and so, it must be accounted for in any taxation. Truly "equal taxation," is determined by having equal impacts on people's lives, not by having equal numbers, mathematically.
That may be true to some extent, but there's no way to quantify that.
Yes, there is, according to average levels of consumption. I concede that it would be best to quantify it individually, but such would be impossible. It would be impossible to calculate the average annual consumption of each American and tax them with a rate according to their difference among others. And so, tax brackets are reasonable. To calculate the rate of progression, you would simply take the difference in rates of consumption and set the progression at that, according to the amount of revenue required. So, for instance, let's say you have a government with only two citizens: One person making $300K who consumes only 50% of their income and another person making $30K who consumes 100% of their income. You would then take the total amount of revenue. Let's say, in this case, the revenue required is $999 bucks. Well, the difference between the two men is 50% and so, that would be the rate of progression between the two. And so, the poor man would pay $333 and the wealthy man would pay $666 dollars. Though they pay different tax rates, because the tax rate is measured according to their average consumption, the impact upon their lives is completely equal.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: If there are not equal impacts on people's lives, the equal numbers are arbitrary, and thus, flat taxes are, in essence, regressive.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Even you'd have to admit that, no matter what, the impact of taxes on any individual's life is somewhat arbitrary. But if you have a fixed percentage which everyone is forced to pay, there's nothing whatever arbitrary about the number. You propose to make it arbitrary. If I am so productive that I command a very high salary, why should I be punished? If I am so unproductive, why should I receive incentives to remain so?
It does, taking into account the above statements. The statement just quoted relates to the above argument. It is not an argument in and of itself. Your question, "Why should I be punished?" (as well as the comments a while back about theft) are complex questions. You need to address whether it actually is theft or punishment before asking a loaded question.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Furthermore, the progressivity of the tax I argue for is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, but determined precisely by opportunity cost: First, the base revenue-neutral rate would be determined. From there, the progressivity of the income tax would be determined by the differences in average consumption per each tax bracket. In this way, it is a progressive tax, but its progressivity has a rational basis.
Rational perhaps, but very much arbitrary.

Quote: By setting it according to average consumption, you are making it so that each person, whether rich or poor, foregoes equal amount of opportunities as a result of taxation. And so, despite the fact that the numbers don't match up, the impacts upon their lives do match up.
You could try anyways, but you'd ultimately fail because people are not averages, and the fact that you've failed to take into account the impact of your taxation scheme upon society.
People aren't percentages either, however. In any case, while I concede that my conception of an income tax does not totally reflect each person's identity as an individual, it still does so to a greater extent than the flat tax.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: I also believe that far more tax brackets must be created. To my knowledge, the largest tax bracket is currently $300,000 and higher. Why should a person who makes $300 million get to pay the same tax as someone who pays $300,000? The people currently being screwed the most by our current taxation system are neither the adversely poor nor the wealthy elite, but rather, the moderately wealthy. I suspect that the Republicans have continued to exploit the moderately wealthy, while continually giving them little tax breaks every few years, in order to foster a strong political base. In similar respects, they have appealed to the Christian Right while passing relatively little legislation regarding Christianity or morality.
Yeah, welcome to the joys of arbitrary taxation! You wanted brackets, you got 'em. Your exact scheme will never see the light of day in Washington; compromises will necessarily be made, and entrenched interests will use influence to benefit themselves. That's a huge problem with progressive taxation.

In fact, it's a huge problem with income taxes in general. With an income tax, the government basically owns your money, and decides how much it will give back to you. That's bulls**t. And realize, even if your scheme were introduced, agruments that one group of people or another were getting screwed will continue for eternity, and there'd never be any objetive way to even know if their claims were legitimate.
Out of everything I'm saying, that's actually one huge thing: tax brackets. There should be far, far more tax brackets. Tax brackets are an annoying means of keeping taxes high or shifting the burden onto a certain group while doing so misleadingly. I.E., a Republican today can pull out figures, like, "The top 1% pay one-third of all taxes!" (that number's probably not correct -- just pulled off the top of my head) Well, that's true. However, it doesn't take into account the context. The top 1% may pay one-third of all taxes, but that may simply be because they are so incredibly wealthy that, even with a flat tax, they would still pay a far larger portion. And it doesn't recognize that the person who is really getting screwed is the guy at the bottom of the highest tax bracket, whereas the wealthy elite, despite accounting for a large portion of overall revenue, may in fact be paying taxes possibly even less than middle-class families.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: And finally, I argue that tax-exemptions should be (mostly) eliminated. For one thing, many charities are corrupt and are nothing more than businesses which make little profit, but just enough to pay their employees. Each charity should be required to not only file with the IRS, but to be economically translucent about where the money is going, in order to be tax-exempt. This should also apply to religious organizations as well. I see no reason why the right to religious expression should take any precedence over the right to political expression. In fact, the Constitution states that we shall make "no law," regarding religion. By creating a tax exemption for it, you are creating a law.
I've thought about this myself. Never to the point where I've attained any strong opinion one way or another, though. This much I'll say: that's probably a fairly minor factor in the overall scheme of things.
I think charities are a fairly big deal. I know the IRS thinks so. I posted a news article a while back about how 7% of all taxes aren't paid because of tax-dodging. Wealthy people using tax shelters is one way that they do this.

Say that you're wealthy and you run a charity or have a friend that runs one, especially a religious charity. Well, being that charities rarely ever have to file and it's difficult for the IRS to investigate them, they are the perfect place to launder money, whether it's drug-money, funds for terrorism, embezzled company funds, or simply unreported income. The wealthy essentially use such institutions as banks, in order to avoid taxation -- in addition to offshore accounts and the whole plethora of other means of dodging taxes.

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Thus, though it taxes the value of land, it acts in many ways as a property tax.
Thus? How does this follow from your premise? The fact that in both taxes are affected by land size is only one partial similarity.
And so, because of that similarity, the LVT acts like a property tax.
Right. In one minor way. Not in "many ways." But even still, put an asterisk next to it, because size isn't a consideration in the tax itself, but in the valuer of the land.

Quote: With the LVT, you're taxing the land value, not the land size (or property value). But land value is partially a function of land size and thus, to that extent, you are taxing land size. Thus, the negative effects of taxes on land size would be present in the LVT, only to a lesser extent.
What negative effects would that be? I mean, I follow you on the whole "there are many negative effects to property taxes" bit, but which do you believe are a result of taxation based on the size of the land?

Quote: If I can explain this more clearly: To determine land value, you take into account various factors. Among such factors, there are land size and the current market demand. To determine property value, you take the land value, add the value of improvements, then tax both. The LVT is a property tax with the value of improvements just sliced off, not being taxed (and so, it's the LVT). However, the negative consequences from property taxes are partially caused by taxing land, not just by taxing improvements. The proof is this: If you were to tax simply the value of the improvements to the land rather than the total property value, the negative effects associated with the property tax would increase if you added a land-value tax on top of the land-improvement tax.
This is the flaw in your reasoning. The effects wouldn't increase, as the whole of the land tax burden falls on the seller. It's no use for the seller to try to increase the price of the land, as the highest price is already sought!

Quote: And similarly, if you took a property tax and stripped away the taxation for improvements on the land, leaving only a land-value tax, the negative consequences associated with property taxes would be only partially decreased. This is because both aspects of the property tax, the tax on land and the tax on improvements, create a disincentive to buy and develop land. The LVT is a disincentive to buy land and the other aspect to the property tax, the tax on improvements, is a disincentive to develop the land. And so, the LVT would still, to some extent, create a disincentive for farmers and urban business-owners to purchase land.
You're laboring under the false assumption that the LVT would increase land prices, which is not the case. There is no disincentive effect, because the total cost to the buyer is unchanged. Further, there really can't be disincentive to buy land for any prolonged period of time, as it is in fixed supply; it's like gas these days, in that, even if it costs a ton, you can't do a damn thing about it (only more so!).

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: There's no burden being shifted here. Business owners already pay the tax in the form of rent.
Business owners pay rent to those whom own the property. Taxation would be added on top of that.
No, taxation would be drawn from that. Remember:

The seller is already asking the highest rent society will bear.

Quote: The government would have to seize all land in the United States if they wanted to enact a land-value tax, expecting it to replace landlords' rent, rather than simply being added on top.
No, they'd just have to tax all land sales and rents 95%. Think of it: those who hold valuable land will still get the highest possible value, and the highest possible value will be the same. The only difference will be that the seller is getting 5% of that value rather that 100%.

Quote: Similarly, the government would have to nationalize the oil industry if they are going to tax oil and not expect an increase in prices. Land is no different, because oil is of fixed supply and yet its price can still be drastically altered. Land is different from a philosophical and moral standpoint, in terms of its unique relation to property. But from an economic standpoint, land is a good like any other. And so, if you levy taxes on it, it won't just magically keep the pre-existing price.
No, land isn't a good like any other. That's the whole point. A good is something that's produced by humans for the use of humans; land is just the physical makeup of the world in which humans exist. Goods, and indeed humans, are specific arrangements of land.

But as to your oil comment, you could only tax so much for use of oil lands. You could tax up to the full value of the land's use, without a change in prices. That's simply not how we tax oil.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Well the tax is not fixed; it's not a property tax where you charge so much per acre. The value is determined by how much people are willing to pay for use of the land; it's value reflects the difference in the value of the land in question and the value of land not in use. If businesses "couldn't afford" the appraised value, the value would necessarily go down until they could. No tax can be collected on unused land, so this would have to be the case.

Think, for a moment, about a lot in Chicago. Say we have the LVT system, and the rent on the land was determined to be 100,000 per year. Now, if this value was too much, as you worry, no one would rent the land. In order for rent to be collected on the land, the value would have to be reduced until it was commensurate with the demand for that land.
This is contradictory and distinctily libertarian, in that you automatically assume a perfect equilibrium. You assert that the supply is fixed and that taxation would merely cause demand to go down, while keeping prices stable. I agree. However, demand would only go down in response to rising prices. If prices remained the same, there would be no reason for demand to decrease. I assume that what you mean is that, prices would rise, demand would go down, then there would be an equilibrium reached between the price increase and the demand (where, in your view, it would be back at its original price and original demand). This belief in a mystical perfect equilibrium aka "the invisible hand," is a rather bold and unfounded assumption. I would say that this claim should be empirically verified before merely assumed. Even so, I doubt that such an equilibrium would be reached exactly at the point where it started.
No, it's actually very simple if you stop and think about it. This equilibrium you speak of already exists and operates quite nicely and is readily observable. Regardless of what portion of land value is taxed, the seller attempts to get the highest rent possible for his land, whereas the buyer tries to pay the lowest rent possible. The relevant factor for determining the cost of land is, then, the burden the buyers are able to support. Sometimes its more, and land values go up, sometimes it's less, and land values go down. This takes place on both a local and national scale. Now, when you get around to taxing this value, you'll find that, regardless what percentage you tax, the land values will remain unchanged.

The reason for this is obvious: buyers set costs, not the sellers!

Quote: If you tax 50% of all land value, realtors can only collect on 50%. If you tax 90% of all land value, realtors can only collect on 10%. And if you tax 100% of all land value, realtors can't collect hardly at all.
Sweet! Why should they be "collecting" my money? By virtue of the fact that they bought land to hold hostage rather than use productively?

Quote: And our economy couldn't exist without clearly established ownership of land.
I agree; that's why I believe we should tax rent at 95%. This also has the nice function of making tax collection a breeze. I even have a system for separating the value of improvements that I'm working on. 8:)

Quote: Secondly, you concede that demand for land would go down (though, if not in response to increasing prices, then what?).
You misunderstood me; my point was that a rise in price would simply mean a decrease in demand. But that's irrelevant, because the buyers set the price.

Quote: But at the same time, while saying demand would go down, you then go on to say that economic productivity would not go down. How can demand for land decrease while still having productivity remain stable? With regards to your example regarding Chicago, if the rent was too high, I wouldn't pay it, nor would most people. Instead, we'd all end up living in pitched tents because the 100% tax on land value greatly increased our rent. If the rent was too high, its price (not its value) would have to be reduced for us to rent. And so, unless either the tax is decreased or the realtors cuts his price for rent, we will not pay for the land.
If the tax were too high, how would anyone go about collecting it? You can only sell land for as much as people are willing to spend. Someone could theoretically hold the land and wait for it to increase in value, but at 5% of the take, this would be a risky investment. Ultimately, landowners would be looking to sell their land.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Well, again, there's no reason why the LVT would have to be a "single tax." Obviously, that would be preferable, but if what you say is true, I believe other taxes could be retained until the point came where they were no longer necessary.
I support a stronger LVT, but I'm skeptical of it and want to see demonstrations of it. I'm not going to buy the argument that we should just implement a single 100% LVT to replace all existing taxes.
Fair enough; at any rate it should be phased in, IMO.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: We must, in my opinion. If your society has a gross injustice at such a fundamental level, failure can be the only result. No amount of charity, welfare, or progressive taxes will ever be able to make up for such a basic error; in fact, many of these serve only to make matters worse.

Free trade is the ultimate condition of commerce, and a monopoly on land makes free trade fundamentally impossible, by make a class of land-owners, and a class of land-renters (or, to use more inflammatory terms, lords and serfs).
Appropriate policy is a combination of both economic efficiency and liberty. I've been reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls and I agree with his method of applying indifference curves to economic efficiency and liberty as an appropriate means of weighing the two. Economic efficiency at the expense of liberty is evil and collectivist. Liberty at the expense of economic efficiency, as noble and individualist as it is, is Anarchy. Hence, it is meaningless. And so, there must be a balance between liberty and economic efficiency. This is true for liberty and security as well.

And so, though liberty and justice are to be valued, an unjust tax may be levied if it is to rectify an even worse injustice, such as, for instance, a grossly underfunded government or an economy on the brink of collapse.
Go on telling yourself that; I don't believe it's sustainable. Injustice is injustice. Trading one form for another is not progressive; it's running in place.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: So, in other words, the state has no means to preserve justice, save violating it? What good is the government, then? You get to choose what your robber's hair looks like?
"Justice," is not necessarily absolute, so black-and-white. There are mitigating circumstances where a certain act which is normally wrong may be permissible, such as if it is to avoid a certain other evil.
It doesn't follow from the fact that something may be permissible that it is just.

Quote: For instance, theft and murder are both objectively immoral acts. We agree that it is wrong to steal or murder. And yet it would be permissible to steal to avoid starvation or to murder out of self-defense, or some other uncontrollable compulsion.
I don't agree that killing in self defense is murder; on the contrary, I find that be justice. In the case of stealing, it's unjust regardless of whether certain circumstances make it excusable. A man stealing to feed his children may be acceptable out of compassion, but the injustice done to the victim is every bit as real.

Quote: Now, libertarians in the past have argued to the contrary, refusing to see such mitigating circumstances. But tell me: if you were on the brink of starvation, would you steal? Would you kill out of self-defense? And, if there were other circumstances where you held no control over yourself (such as being asleep, intoxicated, or under the influence of strong emotion), would you expect yourself to be held responsible? I wouldn't nor can I conceive how any other rational person would. It is based on that, that stealing to avoid starvation and murder out of self-defense is permissible.
But still unjust! You don't base your principles around exceptions where injustice is excused and then claim that justice is meaningless.

Quote: And similarly, the State has the authority to act for similar causes. The State has the authority to enact social welfare to avoid starvation and adverse poverty. And the State has the authority to levy taxes to pay for the police and military. And its citizens have the right to petition their government for such causes. Because though in general, social welfare and taxation are wrong, if the money is used to help the adversely poor and provide security, it benefits us all because, as an unspoken contract, it establishes those things for us (security, means of trade, freedom from poverty) if we were incapable of providing for them ourselves. In government, one's welfare and security is provided for far better than in Anarchy. This is true regardless of who you are, hence such restrictions are justifiable.
This assumes you can't have one without the other. A state need not continuously subvert the rights of some of its people in the name of protecting the rights of others.

Quote: So, yes, you may call taxation "theft," but unjust taxation is preferable to a weak government or Anarchy.
What of the fact that unjust taxation has many times been the cause of just that?

Quote: I am skeptical of Minarchism because what it amounts to is reverting our government to the size and scope of a provisional government (Iraq, Palestine, Somalia) yet expecting it to not teeter into total Anarchy.
I see little reason to think that would be the case. Our government was once very simple indeed; I don't see why it needs to be a second, parasitic society that feeds on its people.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: I don't see how the history of wealth needs to be taken into account to protect property rights in the current.
The history of wealth needs to be taken into account because rights are upheld by governments, not created by them. Property right is a natural right. And so, if a person labored for property (in Anarchy), had their property stolen, and then a government were established, the thief's possession would still remain illegitimate. It would also still be illegitimate for his descendants to inherit the value of the property. In other words, when governments are established, in order for them to uphold legitimate property rights, they must first be aware of who legitimately owns what. Yet, without a time-machine and near omniscience, we cannot be aware of such.
I agree; which is why the state doesn't take that into account. All it can do is preserve property rights in the current. It can't be troubled to trace the roots of that property back to a time before it existed. There's nothing to be done about that point, so it seems a pointless consideration to me. That there were past injustices is a poor excuse to not adhere to a system which would prevent future injustices.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Irrelevant. Property rights are vital for the function of society. Their protection, therefore, is paramount.
Hardly irrelevant. Demographically, most Liberals are poor and most Conservatives (and supporters of the free market) are wealthy.
So what?

Quote: I agree property rights are vital, but I disagree that their protection is "paramount." More basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion are far more importance.
You'd rather be a slave that have your speech repressed? You'd trade the right to your labor for your right to religion? You'd need your religion in the world you'd make.

Quote: The reduction of these freedoms to being property rights is unfounded. Governments are just to the extent that they satisfy the desires of each citizen. A truly well-ordered government is one which pleases everybody. But, if property rights are placed at the utmost importance, then a government would inherently benefit the wealthy because protecting property rights means far more for the wealthy, whom have greater property. This is especially true being that financial success is a function primarily of capital. So, by protecting ownership of capital, you are making it so that the divide between the rich and poor is substantially increased. Yet a society with poor social mobility is just, because it is not a meritocracy, where each is valued equally. But rather, it is, as John Rawls says, a "natural aristocracy."
I disagree that governments are just to the extent that they satisfy the desires of each citizen; governments are just to the extent that they preserve its citizens' natural rights. How is protecting property rights going to make rich people far more wealthy?

I'd agree with Rawls that there is a "natural aristocracy," but I believe that fact can be traced to a fundamental injustice in our land laws. Should it surprise anyone that a natural aristocracy develops in a system that allows a minority to own the land on which everyone else must live and work?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: You propose to arbitrarily punish success.
Hardly. I propose that taxation be imposed according to a balance between what's necessary for liberty to even exist (economic stability and security) and what's necessary for liberty.
The whole time changing what liberty means.

Quote: Such wouldn't be arbitrary, but with a progression based upon average levels of consumption, so that though people are not taxed with equal percentages, the taxation is, in reality, equal because it is the real life impact taxation has on people's lives which is important. Adjusting progressive taxation according to average consumption makes the impact entirely equal. This isn't arbitrary, nor is it punishing success. In fact, it encourages success. By having progressive taxation according to consumption, social mobility would be increased, so that the poor remain poor, only if they so choose, while the wealthy only remain wealthy if they continue to labor for it.
You straight up said that you propose a system where we quite literally take from the rich, and give to the poor. Such a system is the greatest encouragement for sloth that I have ever heard.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: You propose to subsidize the unproductive. That usually results in a wealth sink when it's tried on industry, and I believe it's fairly obvious it would act as a wealth sink every bit as much, if not more, if tried on society.
I think there needs to be clarification between those who choose to be unproductive and those who don't have the basic resources to even be productive. Furthermore, your assumption also implies that the wealthy work more than the poor, yet the reverse is true. And so, I would argue the opposite: Establishing a system of taxation which favors the wealthy and hurts the poor arbitrarily punishes success and rewards unproductivity.
What do you mean "clarification?" That'd be jolly nice, too bad its nearly impossible to determine. What might someone's potential be if he were compelled to perform his best? We'll never know, because he thought it was easier to work at the records store and smoke doobies for the rest of his days, living off some other man's dime all the while.

You may argue that almost no one does that under our current system, and I'd agree; it's an incentive effect, and the greater the benefits, the less incentive there is to work hard. This is a classic example of the failure of one injustice to rectify another.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Because its fair. If the government is going to take 10% of my s**t, you'd be wronged if it took 20% of yours.
But my 10% and your 10% aren't the same. If you take 30% of a poor person's income, they might starve to death. If you take 30% of a wealthy person's income, they'd merely have to cut back their investment options and nothing more.
So, it's okay to steal, so long as they can afford it? That's pretty much what this line of thought boils down to, isn't it?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true to some extent, but there's no way to quantify that.
Yes, there is, according to average levels of consumption. I concede that it would be best to quantify it individually, but such would be impossible.
So, in practice, it's more about grabbing the wealthy man's money; the actual theory behind it is more a window dressing.

Quote: It would be impossible to calculate the average annual consumption of each American and tax them with a rate according to their difference among others. And so, tax brackets are reasonable.
It wouldn't be impossible, though it would be very difficult. It's a good thing they didn't set up the justice system using these principles: "it would be impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether each defendant was really guilty, and so, killing them all and letting god sort them out is reasonable."

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Even you'd have to admit that, no matter what, the impact of taxes on any individual's life is somewhat arbitrary. But if you have a fixed percentage which everyone is forced to pay, there's nothing whatever arbitrary about the number. You propose to make it arbitrary. If I am so productive that I command a very high salary, why should I be punished? If I am so unproductive, why should I receive incentives to remain so?
It does, taking into account the above statements. The statement just quoted relates to the above argument. It is not an argument in and of itself. Your question, "Why should I be punished?" (as well as the comments a while back about theft) are complex questions. You need to address whether it actually is theft or punishment before asking a loaded question.
If someone takes from me, I'm going to consider it theft. All this jargon amounts to a distraction from the fact that, we're not talking about making people support their share of the burden of government, we're talking about taking from people because it's expedient. The idea is that we can fix whatever injustice caused this imbalance in wealth to occur, but you can't save a ship from sinking by poking another hole in the hull. Stealing to right past theft rarely has the effect of making things "even," but always has the effect of making theft acceptable in society's collective opinion. What you end up with is the same original injustice, and a population and government more willing to engage in further injustices.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: You could try anyways, but you'd ultimately fail because people are not averages, and the fact that you've failed to take into account the impact of your taxation scheme upon society.
People aren't percentages either, however. In any case, while I concede that my conception of an income tax does not totally reflect each person's identity as an individual, it still does so to a greater extent than the flat tax.
I don't know, I often rate girls on a 1 to 10 scale. ;)

But seriously, given the knowlege that neither system reflects each person's identity as an individual, why choose a system that requires double the injustice?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Yeah, welcome to the joys of arbitrary taxation! You wanted brackets, you got 'em. Your exact scheme will never see the light of day in Washington; compromises will necessarily be made, and entrenched interests will use influence to benefit themselves. That's a huge problem with progressive taxation.

In fact, it's a huge problem with income taxes in general. With an income tax, the government basically owns your money, and decides how much it will give back to you. That's bulls**t. And realize, even if your scheme were introduced, arguments that one group of people or another were getting screwed will continue for eternity, and there'd never be any objective way to even know if their claims were legitimate.
Out of everything I'm saying, that's actually one huge thing: tax brackets. There should be far, far more tax brackets. Tax brackets are an annoying means of keeping taxes high or shifting the burden onto a certain group while doing so misleadingly. I.E., a Republican today can pull out figures, like, "The top 1% pay one-third of all taxes!" (that number's probably not correct -- just pulled off the top of my head) Well, that's true. However, it doesn't take into account the context. The top 1% may pay one-third of all taxes, but that may simply be because they are so incredibly wealthy that, even with a flat tax, they would still pay a far larger portion. And it doesn't recognize that the person who is really getting screwed is the guy at the bottom of the highest tax bracket, whereas the wealthy elite, despite accounting for a large portion of overall revenue, may in fact be paying taxes possibly even less than middle-class families.
More brackets, more problems. *pours out liquor for his dead homey Biggie*

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: I've thought about this myself. Never to the point where I've attained any strong opinion one way or another, though. This much I'll say: that's probably a fairly minor factor in the overall scheme of things.
I think charities are a fairly big deal. I know the IRS thinks so. I posted a news article a while back about how 7% of all taxes aren't paid because of tax-dodging. Wealthy people using tax shelters is one way that they do this.

Say that you're wealthy and you run a charity or have a friend that runs one, especially a religious charity. Well, being that charities rarely ever have to file and it's difficult for the IRS to investigate them, they are the perfect place to launder money, whether it's drug-money, funds for terrorism, embezzled company funds, or simply unreported income. The wealthy essentially use such institutions as banks, in order to avoid taxation -- in addition to offshore accounts and the whole plethora of other means of dodging taxes.
I suppose, but all of this is a result of our system.

*looks at clock*

Jeee-zus. :shock: