The Georgists

[Dreepa]

No because you aren't right.

1.? It will never happen here.? People like the land they own and they are not going to give it up freely.
2.? Land is not owned commonly.
3.? It smacks of socialism.

ownership is a bundle of rights not a single right...use, exclusion, possession, transferability AND economic rent when it appears beyond Locke's proviso.

land is not owned in common - just the return on land...the economic rent.

land "value" is market value which is objective not utility value which is subjective.

socialism is state ownership of the means of production - land, labor, capital.

today we have socialism because we don't absolutely own our labor.
we don't absolutely own our labor because the state needs money to provide collective services to clean up the mess we are making by using the commons beyond sustainability and empowering corporations too much.

if economic rent were owned in common then we wouldn't need much for services.

Greens would be happy because we would restrict our use of the commons as a source and sink only to Locke's proviso and the economic rent (what was formerly negative externalities) would create a TRUE cost pricing system (Greens want this)

Libertarians would be happy because we would remove all taxation off of labor and capital which IS theft.

The citizens dividend would not touch a bureaucrats hands (libertarians happy) and would provide a basic income guarantee (greens happy).

Minarchists would be happy because the state is doing only what is minimally necessary.

Anarchists are never happy....

I am not an anarchist...
I own my land and I own all the shit on it and I own whatever comes out of the ground etc.
( of course the bank really owns most of it).

[BillG]

I own my land and I own all the shit on it and I own whatever comes out of the ground etc.

then you are a "royal" libertarian not a "real" libertarian...

[Dreepa]

I never said I was a libertarian either.

[Pat McCotter]

Dreepa, are you having fun with Hankster yet?

I enjoy watching him repeat himself day after day.

[Dreepa]

like a dog chasing his tail. 

[BillG]

This is just my opinion, but after reading Jefferson's summary of the taxation debate before the first congress, it seems to me that Property taxes were considered fair because land at that time was used to create wealth.

But now most land has been transferred from a method of raising wealth (income) to a STORE of wealth (savings).  It seems to me then that the original purpose of property taxes was to serve as a non-invasive form of income tax.  Now, however, with land serving a different purpose, isn't it time for the tax to go?

We talk a lot about reducing taxes here on this forum, but my question is what, exactly, should we replace them with?  Income taxes are invasive, property and sales taxes are unfair.  It seems to me that the best way for a state to raise money is to compete on the free market by owning high revenue businesses such as casinos, brothels, etc.  This to me seems to be the best way of raising money for the state.

I understand that some of you don't think the state needs any money at all; but that's sort of beside the point as far as I'm concerned.  Since the state is trying to raise money, I'm interested in getting your thoughts on the best way to raise it without intruding on privacy or instituting an unfair tax.

Caleb

the property tax is actually two taxes in one.

1. taxes on buildings - an indirect tax on the labor of the owner as buildings (capital) are built with the labor of the owner (or hired)
2. taxes on land values - an indirect tax on the labor of the non-owners as everyone being excluded by the owner's use pays higher rents (immediate for tenants) or purchase prices (in the future for a buyer)

a tax on the building VIOLATES the absolute property rights to the fruits of labor of the owner.
a tax on land values UPHOLDS the absolute property rights of the fruits of labor of the non-owners.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.  Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as common stock for man to labour and live on.  If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation.  If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed" (Thomas Jefferson, The Republic of Letters, p. 390).

[Ron Helwig]

The income tax is just a tax on the sale of your labor, so any arguments against a sales tax apply to the income tax as well.

The sales tax is immoral (a third party forcing itself into trades between willing partners, demanding a cut of the action, with no reason given except "I want"). It harms commerce. The fact that it is avoidable (i.e. "black market") means that a large enforcement agency is required, which leads to more possibilities for corruption.

So, I believe firmly that the sales and income taxes are most definitely unfair.

I don't think the government should be interfering in the market. If competition is allowed, as it should be, then private businesses should be more efficient, providing better goods and services at lower cost. The government run businesses don't stand a chance on a level playing field. That limits their usefulness as revenue generators.

The land tax, on the other hand, is not an avoidable tax (not a big seller in this crowd, I know  )
The tax collectors only need to know who the land owners are. Renters can remain anonymous.
Of course I think that the property tax should be capped at a maximum total of 5% of the value of the land. If that isn't enough to pay for the legitimate functions of government, then we might want to look elsewhere, but not before then.

The land I'm working on purchasing I'll be paying around $130,000 for. 5% of that is 6500. I'd rather pay less than that, but if that was my total taxes for the year (fed, state, and local), I'd be ecstatic!

Yes, the utility of land as capital has lessened over time to the point that most rich people aren't large landholders. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs et al aren't known for their vast territories. That fact doesn't invalidate the premises I use to determine what is fair or not.

This was in response to a comment by calibaba in another thread. How did it end up here?
Are moderators moving messages with thoughts they don't necessarily agree with into the endless debate section?

[BillG]

have you read any of his other books about energy (last Hours of Ancient Sunlight) or corporate personhood (Unequal Protection)?

he is based in Vermont and also has a syndicated radio show that is also podcasted.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

you may also be interested in Gary Hart's books on Jefferson's republican ideals...

http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/writings/books/index.php

I have read them all...

1. Restoration
2. Minuteman
3. Patriot

I am the appointed chair of the Democratic Freedom Caucus in NH which is a movement to restore the party that jefferson founded to his ideals.

[BillG]

I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.

You can't leave us hanging like that, what's chapter 4 about????

He compares the different response to the depression from Hitler and Roosevelt.

[BillG]

Does this have something to do with the WWJD bumper stickers that I see all the time?

are you sure that isn't "JC" not "JD"

[BillG]

OK, I've scanned it:

you can't do that Pat.

it is against copyright laws...which Jefferson supported that allowed authors to enclose a portion of the social commons (our written and spoken language) to monopolize the product of their labor for a SPECIFIC period of time (to encourage arts and sciences and add to the common good) and then it reverts back to the commons.

[BillG]

So, sue me!

do you not respect property rights?

[BillG]

So, sue me!

do you not respect property rights?

They belong to the 'commons'..

How is it any different then people cutting an pasting from a website?

a website is part of the internet commons (social) because it does not charge for access to the content once you access the internet.

a book's content on the other hand is private property via state granted monopoly privilege of enclosing the social commons (copyright) for a limited period of time after which it reverts back to the commons.

the cost of the book that is paid to the author, granted via state privilege (all privileges shift costs) , is a negative externality foisted upon society inorder to eventually enhance the greater common good - that is why state privileges are granted!

Pat has a few years to wait before what was done was not a violation of the private property rights of the author.

[BillG]

Just want everyone to know that because I disagree with anyone doesn't mean I don't like him, or her. I like Seth, and I like Lloyd, both of whom I have disagreed with. Hell, we all disagree at one point, or another. So what! Maybe since I want to eliminate public schools, it will help Seth in his run for office. Who knows? But don't tell me I am wrong to speak my mind. I will undoubtedly disagree with everyone here, at one point or another. So I will speak my mind, and let you speak yours. 

just don't pretend though that you are actually helping Seth.

by stating that you want to eliminate public schools you will hurt his chances of getting elected to fulfill his legislative agenda which is moving carefully and cautiously towards minarchism.

[BillG]

Well Hankster, every movement needs its radicals.  Seth will look positively conservative when measured up to me

in other words...if Seth is seen as being a part of this "movement" he will be unelectable!

the movement has a fundamental, logically inconsistent flaw built-in...it is incompatible with the views of building a traditional, majority political party.

this fatal flaw has doomed both the freedom and ecology "movements" over the last 30 years...and it appears to me the FSP is falling ino the same paradox.