Part 1: An Appeal to Authority
There’s a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise … and yet we need taxes. We have to recognize that we must not hope for a Utopia that is unattainable. I would like to see a great deal less government activity than we have now, but I do not believe that we can have a situation in which we don’t need government at all. We do need to provide for certain essential government functions — the national defense function, the police function, preserving law and order, maintaining a judiciary. So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.
– Milton Friedman
Believe it or not, urban economics models actually do suggest that Georgist taxation would be the right approach at least to finance city growth. But I would just say: I don’t think you can raise nearly enough money to run a modern welfare state by taxing land
– Paul Krugman
Ground-rents seem, in this respect, a more proper subject of peculiar taxation than even the ordinary rent of land. The ordinary rent of land is, in many cases, owing partly at least to the attention and good management of the landlord. A very heavy tax might discourage too, much this attention and good management. Ground-rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people, or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon; or to make to its owner so much more than compensation for the loss which he might sustain by this use of it. Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.
– Adam Smith
Pure land rent is in the nature of a ‘surplus’ which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called ‘the useful tax on measured land surplus’.
– Paul Samuelson
[T]axing economic rent has become the bête noir of neoliberal globalism. It is what property owners and rentiers fear most of all, as land, subsoil resources and natural monopolies far exceed industrial capital in magnitude. What appears in the statistics at first glance as “profit” turns out upon examination to be Ricardian or “economic” rent.
– Michael Hudson
Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil.
– David Ricardo
________
My thoughts (such as they are) will start with part 2, but a teaser with what some economists you might have heard of think seemed like a good place to start. Let the arguments begin!
No quotes from Henry George himself?
I left out two quotes. One from a Pope for Eddie. Another from Thomas Paine, although it will probsbly show up later in the series.
I am sure I will quote George at some point. But I am hoping to separate the SLT from the rest of Georgism.
A Land Value Tax isn’t technically a tax. It is compensation paid to those excluded from the use of a scarce natural resource. So it is best thought of as rent or a user fee.
Land is everything not supplied by human effort. Therefore Land cannot be “owned” because unlike goods and services it is not a produced factor.
By outbidding others by paying the most compensation, the LVT allows the market to optimally allocate resources to those who can put them to their most productive use.
Thus where markets are perfect the LVT is neutral, where they are imperfect because owner occupiers can impute their rent, it is better than neutral.
Fairness and efficiency are two sides of the same coin and result from the correct framework of property rights. The LVT is therefore fundamental if the humans want to live together in peace and prosperity.
You’re (not specifically directed only at you, but at all of the LVT/SLT supporters I have talked to) just dangling unsupported premises out there and playing a circular logic game without supporting your premises.
Until and unless there is satisfactory proof of the below premises, I’m just not buying it.
1) Labor is the only way to make property privately ownable
2) Anything not privately owned is owned communally
3) The community owns the unrealized economic value of land
After drinking from the SLT glass, there’s an aftertaste of communism, and it’s quite bitter. Therefore it’s a really hard sell, especially when SLTers are unable/unwilling to examine their premises.
What is fair is economically efficient. Which is why theft is illegal. It harms others and distorts incentives.
By producing and owning capital, we are not impinging on the ability of others to do so for themselves, because by definition, capital is reproducible. Taxation of labour and capital distorts incentives to produce, thus we get inefficient resource allocation, and thus we all end up poorer.
When we exclude others from valuable locations, because they not reproducible, we harm the ability of others to access a greater amount of wealth and welfare creating opportunities compared to those found at marginal locations. LVT can be thought of as Pigouvian compensation tax.
Furthermore, if owner occupiers do not pay compensation at full market rent for their right to exclude others, the market cannot then allocate immovable property into the hands of those will to pay the most, and therefore put it to it’s highest productive use. There will then be a tendency for land to be over consumed relative to capital. Leading to excessive vacancy, under occupation and urban sprawl.
So, where markets are imperfect because owner occupiers can impute their rent, the LVT is better than neutral. That is, in and of itself, it aids resource allocation and helps grow the economy.
Where markets are perfect, because we all rent our property, LVT eliminates any excessive inequality that arises from the uneven distribution of land rents. Thus is helps thicken the market and aids economies of scale. So LVT is better than neutral in this respect too.
LVT is the opposite of Socialism and Communism because they result in shrunken economies and large State apparatus.
Firstly, the LVT does not tax wealth creation, or private property.
Secondly, as such, under the LVT the wealthiest person with the highest income would owe a penny in tax unless their property only occupied marginal location.
Thirdly, as occupying valuable land is a choice, so people would decide how much revenues they want to pay for the benefits they receive by choice. So the State would be a competitor in the market for our taxes, rather than a mere recipient.
Fourthly, as most State spending is to mitigate the symptoms of economic injustice caused by not sharing land rents equally, the LVT wouldn’t just grow the economy, by it would shrink the scope and remit of the State. The State would be reduced to the role of “Estate Manager” and rent collector on behalf of its citizens. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore are the closest facsimile we have to the effects of the LVT, although they still have a long way to go.
If you want the smallest possible Governance, then the LVT is the only path towards that goal.
So all land belongs to the state. You are merely allowed to have some interest in it, to feed the state revenue? If the land is the state’s source of revenue, then it WILL tell you what to do with it, what to not do with it, and it will be able to take it, your home, business or farm. All the world is the state’s property?
As long as there is a state, then yes it will have ultimate say over land and anything else for that matter. Good states more or less respect the property titles they issue bad states do not. But no one is sovereign over their property in this world.
This tax accelerates the state taking your property away from you. This ain’t eminent domain to build a border fort or a highway….it will be Kelo all day, everyday – to feed Leviathan.
All taxes feed the Leviathan. With the income tax high enough, plus a nice European 20% VAT on anything you will never be able to afford any property in the first place unless inherited, or you will with a huge debt load which will make you similarly a few payments away from loosing your property.
If it is the sole source of revenue, I think it will be worse. I don’t think the abuse of other taxes justifies it.
But that’s just, like my opinion, man.
Yes, we’re all just serfs living on the King’s land.
So all land belongs to the state.
Does not the state exist to secure property rights (starting with land) – both via national defense and internal civil/judicial institutions? How can land be ‘owned’ without an agency that recognizes and enforces such ownership?
I don’t think a court system needs to own it to make a decision.
Does not the state exist to secure property rights
That is a great point. How much does it cost to maintain the legal system? I don’t see that tab item on my property tax notice. I see schools, roadz and other stuff.
I see stuff listed on the tax bill that the theft is ostensibly going to finance … if you’re naive enough to believe that once your overlords have your money, they won’t ignore their promises to you, and won’t spend their loot in ways that benefit themselves, while giving lip service to it being for the common good.
I don’t know if you’ll see this, but why is this the fallback argument against a SLT? Does an income tax mean the government owns you and gets the first take of the fruits of your labor? Does a sales tax mean the government can tell you what to buy or sell or what the price should be?
Also, a SLT is a tax on the unimproved value of the land. It doesn’t matter what you do on the land, what kind of business or farm or whatever, the tax will be the same. The government will have no incentive to take your land from you. It won’t get more money from someone else who puts a stadium on it, or whatever. If anything the government will want to sell off any land holdings it has as this tax is it’s only tax form of revenue.
Also, a SLT is a tax on the unimproved value of the land. It doesn’t matter what you do on the land, what kind of business or farm or whatever, the tax will be the same.
I call bullshit on this. SLT is put forth as a pragmatic proposal to replace the income tax. I’ve never heard of some uncorruptible way to calculate some canonical “unimproved value” (something I dispute actually exists). No, in reality “unimproved value” in the slums will be nearly zero and unimproved value in the rich areas will be astronomical.
By George, he’s dotty!
(actually I don’t know if it’s a good idea but I couldn’t pass up a pun. I know my father was interested in Georgism, but then he came from a socialist background)
So i gotta be the one to say this???
Fuck off slaver
Second JsubD reference of the day on this site. I like it.
Nope, that was me. But originally P Brooks.
I bet I can poke a hole in this. About that property you just bought, well I’ve just declared a species of bird that lives on it is now protected. You can’t develop it, you must still pay tax for it, you can’t sell it without disclosing this fact, nobody will buy it because it can’t be developed, and the state won’t buy it from you at the value it would have without the bird species dwelling on it. And the best part of all: an unelected bureaucrat did this to you. There is nothing you can do to stop it. He’ll be employed forever no matter what he does.
Now you own property that will default to the state for a pittance. It can later choose to change its regulations and sell the property if it needs the cash
I have great respect for Milton Friedman, but nobody can be right every time.
he’s responsible for the withholding system too.
sad!
Under the LVT, the selling price of all land would be zero or close to it. So your point is a non sequitur.
Owning and managing a fair amount of timber land I have to say No. No, no, no. That land brings income every 30 years yet I pay taxes every year, and for what? I cant even get the goddamned sheriff to go to the remote areas to enforce my property rights. Tax time is the only time I hear from them, oh, and harvest time. They show up with their hands out. Fuck property taxes. I pay them now because it is the only way I can keep land that has been in my family for five generations. Everything that is there is because of the efforts of three generations of owners. Everyone else did exactly jack-shit, unless you count stealing or poaching.
Or arson.
The State thinks everything belongs to them.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, however.
I should add that we own a woodlot, and have the same experience. Well, minus harvesting the wood for income.
And then there was New York’s STAR tax reduction scheme, in which seniors could get lower property taxes, except that you had to apply for it. The State couldn’t just not levy the taxes in the first place.
How many acres is your lot? Do you plan to keep it forever? Where (growing zone) is this lot?
I think everything is getting sold off when Dad dies. We used it to get wood to heat the house in winter back when I was young. Catskill Mtns., NY. And it’s only about 25 acres, half on a hill. So not worth all that much. And it doesn’t have road access. And it borders state forest on the non-hill side. But none of that matters to the State. Greedy fuckers want their money.
I wouldn’t pay the kind of property tax NY wants. 25 acres can be quite productive. 25 acres of poplar can produce a shit-ton of firewood and if you rotate cutting them in the late fall you can have a generous crop every year. They sprout out of the stump and in 5 years you have wood again. You cut every fifth tree each year. By the time you get around to the first ones you cut they are ready to cut again.
25 acres of black walnut would be worth a fortune if your family is willing to wait the half a century it would take to get good saw logs.
If you add up the taxes over the years and they are more than the wood is worth then fuck it.
Yeh good luck with this debate. You haven’t determined once and for all whether deep dish is pizza and you think you gonna come to any conclusion about property taxes?
I think not.
And then there are the people who think they need to show their libertarian “purity” by railing against Daylight Savings Time.
It’s always good for a laugh….
What about eating a deep dish pizza on DST?
Acceptable between 1 am and 2 am in the autumn time change?
Only acceptable if you’re high on weed, and just finished having butt sex with a Mexican.
You just outted yourself. You implied acceptance of this – admittedly tasty – food item as pizza by calling it such.
*makes note to disinvite Swiss to next pizza night*
It’s alright swiss. We can have an alt-pizza night at my place while SP has her ‘real’ pizza.
I shudder to think what you will put on a flat disc-shaped food item that you then will call pizza and serve to the unsuspecting, Doom.
At least Swiss Servator’s item is a valid combination of foods. Tomato pie is indeed delicious. It’s just not pizza.
Your concoction is just an abomination.
well, we can agree on the pie part.
DST is exactly like the Holocaust
Fuck off time-slaver! The government can’t tell me what time it is!
It’s 420, if you’re wondering.
I am hoping, if nothing else, that people will make the distiction between land tax and property tax.
So far, very little luck with that.
I wonder what Frank thinks.
I have a guess.
GAH?!
Admit it, you kept a link for future uses on only the most cat-assable people. Like Frank.
The official coffee of the Glibertarian editors.
Had some kopi luwak once it was unimpressive.
On purpose?
it was part of a coffee tasting (cupping they call it ) at a hipster roasters
Ah. Understood.
2 girls, one cupping?
Random comments:
Re: abusing the system. Have you seen what they have done with the income tax?
The fact that the valuation would be arbitrary at best still makes it less abusable than other taxes.
I mentioned in the previous thread anout 6% as the rate. After some basic research for future parts, I am gonna cap it at 4%.
Its funny, instead of criticisms of Friedman, I was expecting disbelief at my quoting Krugman and Samuelson.
I loved the last part of the Krugman quote, making my argument for me.
Too easy. If Paul Krugman declares that water is still wet, I’m going to go verify it.
I’m not surprised by Krugman. He’s not an idiot. He’s just chose to become a partisan hack which makes him say stupid things. Conscious of a Liberal and all that vapidity.
Having read none of the other comments, and about half of the “authorities” I say this:
I find the land tax to be utterly morally repugnant. My land is my refuge, and the notion of allowing the government the power to tell me to cough up rent (for in this system there can be no confusion about who truly owns “my” land), or they’ll seize my land and turn it over to someone who will make more “productive” use of it is about as reprehensible as it gets.
I second this.
Just what makes it your land? Perhaps some paper the govt provides to you, and the agents of the govt that will enforce your right to exclusive use of it should any trespass upon it?
Just what makes it your land?
You made a claim to the land that is superior to all other claims of the land. Just because the government has put in place a system of acknowledging and protecting property ownership rights doesn’t mean that property ownership is a perk of the government.
Besides, the slippery slope on allowing government to charge for the protection of natural rights is a pretty steep one (Just what makes it your labor?)
As a complete novice in there matters, I’ll ask the dumb questions.
1. How is “unimproved value” of land determined?
2. How is that determination adjusted over time?
In my naive economic view, “value” is what someone else will pay you. But how does one determine “value” of a hypothetical object absent a real market with a real potential transaction?
Land is valued by looking at the recent sale prices of nearby or similar properties. It’s a crapshoot at best.
OK, so I have a house in Menlo Park or Mountain View. There’s no “unimproved land” anywhere nearby. How is the value determined?
The tax assessor then looks at similar improved properties and tries to determine the value of the improvements.
So basically completely arbitrary?
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I hate both.
Hey Playa, just take your bat and ball and go home! Oh wait, the gov’t just took your home…oh well.
On another note: after you changed my time stamp last night, I couldn’t post anymore. Weird. It kept saying: “you are commenting too fast.”
So… the experiment was a success?
I’m at Cal having lunch with my son.
There’s a lot of good food there.
Enjoy
It’s determined by assholes. Same with the improved value.
I added on a new room when kid #2 was born. Total cost for everything, including materials, labor, and permits was about 30k.
The assessor said the improvements were worth a quarter million. I submitted receipts and signed contracts. I’m still negotiating with them 5 years later.
An additional quarter million in assessed value bumps my property taxes up by about $2700 a year.
Fuck you, that’s why.
My mom had a mortgage banking business for almost 40 years. I remember as a kid going to her office and seeing this on the wall.
+1
Ha! I actually did get a really good appraiser. He knew what he was being paid to do.
Well, what say you Mr. George?
Yes, value has to be gauged by an actually possible transaction.
Would that count eminent domain? “Well, we would offer you a kajillion dollars, so…your tax is based on that!”
I would support a law that says anyone who presumes to tax your property based on a value they assign must be willing to purchase your property at that time for the amount they say it’s worth.
Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.
– A Smith
Serfdom. Yummy, yummy serfdom.
It’s bad enough I have to pay property taxes now for the benefit of a bunch of lazy (mostly) useless teachers and other local parasites.
Just imagine what it would take to fund the deep state.
Rading these quotes does not sway me to the side of land taxes. Instead it makes me go “Are you going to back up those baseless assertions?”
Indeed if anything, I am even more opposed to land taxes than I was before.
Yeah, my hackles are up just reading this stuff.
OT: someone posted this article last night about a woman who feels the reason she’s perpetually single is because men are jealous and intimidated of her genius.
That reminded me of a recent experience. I asked a girl I had a date with earlier what she was doing for the weekend. She said hanging out with her boyfriend. “Oh? I thought you were single,” I said. She said she was, but got snatched up quick because of course she’s so darn intelligent and irresistible, and thus rarely single for long and even though she could have any man, she’s only into long-term relationships and yadayadayada. I was surprised. She seemed nice enough when I met her and then out of nowhere comes a flurry of weird boasts. Although I now understand why she’s a never married, childless, 32 year old (not that there’s anything wrong with that, if marriage and kids aren’t your thing).
It’s fun to imagine that story with the genders reversed. If a man had spoken that way to a woman, it would become one of those viral outrage clickbait stories on Buzzfeed and paraded around as proof that we need to have a conversation about toxic masculinity and male privilege.
So no big loss. The next day I had a 2nd date with a much nicer girl who also is curious about Austrian economics. I have a good feeling about her.
I barely got a few paragraphs in before I was certain “You’re not single because you’re smart, you’re single because you’re insufferable”
Truly madam, you are a philosopher queen, straddling the earth like an intellectual colossus.
I found it very easy to read that quote in the voice of Zap Brannigan.
Zap doesn’t call his work The Big Book of War for nothing.
The author of that article is single because she looks like an extra in an upcoming reboot of Tootsie.
“Austrian curious”
It’s called modesty, not dumbing down. Her problem isn’t her (likely self-inflated sense of) intelligence. It’s her social skills.
You can’t give yourself a nickname.
You can’t declare yourself wise.
If you have to tell people how smart you are you probably aren’t.
So, the lady is having a conversation in cront of her boyfriend, in a language he doesn’t speak, and he’s jerk to be pissed at her incredible rudeness?
That’s not a woman. That’s a man, man.
Taking her assertion as true, I wonder if she thinks high intelligence has selective advantage?
I don’t think you can raise nearly enough money to run a modern welfare state by taxing land
Oh, come on. How will we know if we don’t try?
I am reminded,, for some reason, of a story about one of the Mars (chocolate) brothers; he was involved in a dispute with some company over mineral exploration on his Montana ranch land. He spent a fortune in court trying to lock them out, with no success, instead of just buying the fucking company and telling them to look anywhere they wanted, as long as it wasn’t his.
We have to tax it to find out what’s in it.
Are surface and mineral rights separate in Montana? Just from what I read there it sounds like they are.
Not sure on that one.
This ain’t eminent domain to build a border fort or a highway….it will be Kelo all day, everyday – to feed Leviathan.
Use It or Lose It tax.
Use it the way we say or lose it.
How can we hope to ‘own’ property? According to the US government, we don’t even own ourselves. So not only are we serfs living on the King’s land, we’re actually the King’s serfs living on the King’s land.
My ranking of taxation methods from best to worst:
1. nothing required, people donate what they feel is fair
2. head tax- every adult pays the same
3. tariffs & tolls
4. “sin” taxes
5. sales tax
6. property tax
7. estate tax
8. income tax
The bottom 3 are kind of a toss up. I’m tempted to say estate taxes are the worst because they disrupt capital formation. And property taxes are awful to because the value of the land is assessed arbitrarily and the premise of the tax is that you never own land you just rent it from the govt. And the income tax takes your money before you get a chance to spend it.
Where does the land tax fall?
If you group it with property tax you are missing most of the point.
Unless you can show land is not property, I don’t see how you can argue that they are not the same category.
All land is property. Most property is not land.
Therefore all land tax is property tax. Why do you insist on trying to separate it out? It is still the unconscionable charging of money for the simple act of posessing some form of property.
Land is not the same as other property. It was not created by humans and we can’t make any more until we colonize space.
Barring a few temporary islands in Dubai.
Or a big chunk of the Netherlands.
To separate out land from the products of labor. Which is the important distinction. The fruits of your labor belong entirely to you and shouldnt be taxed at all.
As far as unimproved land goes, you didnt build that.
And it is limited. I find that’s important. Historically no one taxed sunlight. The more limited something is the more conflict there is for it.
The worst “taxes” are taxes on time. You can make more marginal dollars; you can’t make more marginal time.
Of course, these aren’t taxes; these are things like regulations that require hours filling out forms, or TSA shit at the airport, or speed limits.
Maybe I would take a sales tax over property tax, but not an income tax, a wealth tax or an inheritance tax.
The income tax means you have to record and report to the government every income you make to pay an arbitrary percentage. If it is progressive it is easier to sell tax increases by increasing tax only on a bracket, in order to get the others votes. And it fuels the whole tax the rich envy thing going
3. tariffs & tolls
Did you put on your MAGA hat when you wrote that, Trumpalo?
-most left-libertarians
The Brits funded the most financially-stable great power of the eighteenth century by taxing booze. And I don’t drink, so…
What about the cavalier973 Lottertax?
Each week (or month), the various components of local, state, and federal government have lotteries. Half the take goes to the department budgets, the other half is paid out in winnings.
People can decide which departments of government they wish funded by purchasing the lottery tickets from those particular departments. If a department is not selling as many tickets as it wants, then it can adjust the payout percentage. If people don’t want to pay taxes, they can eschew purchasing the lottery tickets. If people only care about funding “essential government services”, they can buy the tickets, and forgo the winnings if they get lucky.
Gambling is bad, mkay
It’s not gambling, it’s paying your taxes! Surely you think it’s right and proper to pay one’s taxes?
You’re not one of those un-American dirty pinko-commie anarchists, are you?
It’s immoral. My
PastorRepublican congressman told me so. Like pot and ass-secks.How is “unimproved value” of land determined?
The Treasury decides how much money they want from the serfs, and work backwards from there.
I’m interested in hearing your arguments, you’re a smart cookie. However I don’t you will convince me. Income and property tax are the two worst as they really imply that you have no property rights. To me at least income tax targets value creation, by property taxes eat up already stored wealth.
but incentive wise it can be worse to target value creation …
Land taxes dont eat up already stored wealth. They are a transfer of “economic rents” from the land owner to the state.
“Economic Rents”? The simple act of owning a plot is a “rent”?
I’m still not seeing your argument. My land is the same size as the foundation of my house plus the sidewalk outside. I’m waiting for the justification on why I should pay the government year over year or be forced out on the street over it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
Its going to get handled in part 2, but I assume some terms that appatently need to be defined.
The point being, all land generates rents from the mere sake of owning it.
I know what it means. It’s as weak and full of horse shit. My question mark was an expression of incredulity that it was being advanced as an argument.
Forgive me, I phrased that more harshly than I should have.
The base presumption is where my disagreement comes from – The claim that the act of ownership generates value in of itself stands as an assertion. I have not seen the evidence of that.
Well first off damn you for making me brush up on Ricardo’s theory of rent, and thank you for reminding me of Böhm-bawerks critique of it (I need to go re read this for our future debate.)
I’m not going to put words in your mouth, so I’m just asking if I’m correct I in understanding. A land use tax in your mind is a tax on rents, so you would agree that this is a tax on the interest accrued to a factor of production for is part in production. In other words are you speaking of Ricardo’s Rent as applied only to land or more modern teens of rent as applied to any factor of production?
Ricardo’s as applied to land. I would be fine with applying it to patents and copyright if we are going to continue using those too.
OT : This thread at the GamerGate subreddit is a really interesting set of personal testimonies about how people (mostly starting on the political left!) came to be revolted by “SJW” behavior and joined the non-ideologically-conforming community. I have found it really elucidating and frankly comforting to read, and I think people here might as well.
And the very next thread up is this shit.
Like chemtrail-hunters, these people inhabit a different planet than I do. A planet I like to call “Whogivesafuckia”.
I believe that in order to self-identify as a ‘gamer’ in any way it requires you to give an inordinate amount of fucks about relatively random or minor things.
I haven’t read past the first paragraph yet, but the writer seems a little confused about what human rights are:
So, electric, employment, and timely garbage pickup are human rights? I’d settle for the government just leaving me the fuck alone.
I’d cut some slack, English is clearly not his first language.
Then English is not bad at all. I clearly understand what the person is saying and what I’m saying is that they are confused as to what human rights are, from a libertarian perspective. Of course, many Americans consider high speed internet and a smartphone a human right, so it’s not that surprising to see someone think that way.
I remember some British local councils pondering prostitutes for the disabled because sex is a right and disability can prevent one from getting it …
I can see disability claims quadrupling if we ever pass policy on that idea in the United States.
How about dodecatuple?
You lost me there.
The great majority of people are either on Team Blue or Team Red, Team Right or Team Left.
People who do not identify as being on Teams could themselves be said to form a cohort or a community.
It appears to use the language of SJWs to describe a moderate
To be honest, if the federal government decided to impose a sales tax on real estate, I wouldn’t get especially het up about it. A tax which is a (tiny, one hopes) portion of a real number, arrived at in negotiation by a willing buyer and a willing seller is, in the greater scheme of things, much less objectionable than paying an annual fee to be allowed to remain in place on land subject to a whimsical “valuation” by some government functionary.
Unless you live in a small handful of states, the latter already exists and is much more onerous than an SLT would be.
I was wrong, every state has property tax.
Yeah, certainly a tax on the unimproved value of land would be preferable to property taxes which increase with any work you put into the property. It would need to be based on actual sales in an area rather than offers. Obviously no taxes would be even better.
One of the things that I hate is that they actually have a guy with a very small penis who just drives around all of the time waiting to see you put a new railing on your deck so they can jack your taxes up.
Ad Friedman said in the first quotation, that isnt an option available.
Honestly the SLT would provide so little revenue, it would be a non-starter too.
But in monarchitopia, it should be discussed.
Minarch
Well you could set the rate to whatever you wanted. Maybe the feds would come of some of that land out west.
OT: From time to time, I see things about how the Eskimos have 50 words for snow or the Arabs have 100 words for camels and so on. What I think is more interesting is how many words English has for different kinds of money: credit, income, tax, debt, loan, payment, currency, salary, wage, price, value, expense, etc.
Seems like a general rule of languages is that anything that is central to lives of its speakers will be distinguished by many different terms.
do Arabs have more than one word for camel toe?
I think there are pretty important distinctions between those uses of money and i think it makes communication easier if the different nuances are included in the word instead of described with other words.
My money is 60k per year. I have bank money 100k at 5% money per year. The money for the car is 10k. etc
Even-toed ungulate fetish?
Well done, sir.
And, spoiling the joke by explaining it (sorry), that is the cleverest way of calling someone a goat-fucker I’ve ever heard.
Well, I’m just happy that someone got it.
Exactly, and yet when you tell people tribe X has 50 words for Y, it’s taken as a joke. Yet the reason they do that is the same reason English has so many words for money.
I find my native language less nuanced than English. There are several word that mean the same thing in many languages, but I think I notice in English that there are some slight differences between the meanings, different nuance, not just interchangeable words.
What’s your native language?
Well I can’t say that wouldn’t want you people to other me.
So, Gaelic.
I didn’t know homosexuals had their own language
I learn so much from you all.
Ok I laughed at that
You don’t trick me that’s not a real language.
Anyway based on American’s stereotypical lack of knowledge of the world outside the US I can assume you never heard of it.
Try me.
Romanian. Think the badlands of South Eastern Europe
My administrative assistant is from Ploiești.
So your last name has at least 3 vowels at the end of it?
My great-grandfather was from Topleț.
Could be worse, you could be Bulgarian.
At this level of thread depth, if I don’t maximize the window I get one letter stacked atop another…
AM I the only one seeing weird vertical comments with one letter per row?
No my last name has one vowel at the end of it I share it with a playwright who wrote mostly in french and achieved some fame.
UnCivil hates tiny screens!
X34!
@John Titor
But had Pie been more a little more east, he would have been a member of this awesomeness.
QUICK DONT JUST STAND THERE TRY AND BRACE IT WITH SOMETHING
Were you part of the menstrual police for Ceausescu? Because that’s an othering.
Don’t go turning into a rhinoceros on us.
No, DOOMco, I just want to use my screen real estate for multiple screens.
There are probably a few people around here who would like to see more politicians get the Ceaușescu treatment. So it isn’t like Romania is that obscure.
There is absolutely NOTHING stereotypical about HM. That’s his “charm.”
Hey! I’m as cheap as my Jewish, Scottish, and Indian parts would have one believe.
PieintheSkyeascu
You said you didn’t want to be othered. Sorry.
Say, are you typing from the uneven bars right now?
Hmmm back to normal. And if I had my way Romania would invade Bulgaria and steal their cucumbers.
As I am a libertarian and as such not a woman no, no uneven bars.
@Gilmore
Polari.
HM is like a stock multiracial character from an 1950s sci-fi novel. His real name is probably Shlomo McTaggart Kobayashi Gupta and he wears a silver jumpsuit with hoops on the shoulders.
As for me, I combine the sunny personality of Marvin the Paranoid Android together with the subtlety of the Lost in Space robot.
Ok something strange is going on with the comments.
“Eskimos have 50 words for snow”
North Americans seem to have a lot more words for temperature than South Americans do, as well as more words for various type of frozen precipitation.
When the Bible was being translated into Inuit, they weren’t sure how to translate “lamb” as there are no sheep up there. They translated it as “seal pup” instead.
Apparently, translating animal names is the trickiest part.
“Jesus is the good seal herder. He watches over the rookery.”
My wife was really confused at first about what the difference between ‘chilly’, ‘cool’, and ‘cold’ is. I guess when you live somewhere it’s always hot, you don’t need too many words for cold.
The explanation I read about the 50 words for snow is that Eskimos do compound words, similar to German. So instead of saying wet snow or dry snow, they say wetsnow or drysnow.
Their language and many others in the Americas are polysynthetic/agglutinative languages, meaning that what would be a phrase or short sentence in English could be a single long word in a language like Cheyenne or Inupiak.
Bantu languages do this as well. In Swahili for example hatutajitambulisha means “we will not introduce ourselves”.
hatu- negative prefix for we
ta- future tense marker
ji- reflexive marker
tambua- verb root for to recognize
sha- causative verb suffix (like -ize or -en in English)
In English, “ing” and the plural “s” aren’t stand alone words. In other languages, “went” is not a stand alone word.
I’m tempted to say estate taxes are the worst because they disrupt capital formation.
You’re being obtuse. A stable and well run government is what permitted you to acquire your disproportionate piece of the pie. We know it was disproportionate by virtue of the fact that there is something left, as you lie on your deathbed, awaiting your eternal reward. The pie was served to you by a beneficent government, and any remainder of your piece should revert to the server.
My two cents – Land, at least land that has value, is only held by force. Either individuals defend their land or the government does, and land is the one thing that a government can actually defend. They can’t defend you, cops don’t stop assaults, they just clean up the mess. Likewise they don’t protect any non real property, you rarely get back stolen goods, just a police report to give to your insurance agent. But land (and the ownership claims thereof) , that they can protect. Perhaps with a home on a half acre lot this is not so apparent, but if we’re talking about a shit ton of ranch land your ancestors snatched, you only ‘own’ that if the government says you do. Why shouldn’t you pay for the security that you benefit from. Sure it’s a protection racket but without that racket you’re not likely to hold on to that land very long anyway.
In some parts of the world, the tradition has been you can only own land if you are growing crops on it or grazing livestock on it or have a building on it and live there permanently.
Allowing people to own land and other property is a must for prosperity. Property taxes are not.
Property taxes are not a must for prosperity. But the question is which taxes are better than others. If we must have taxes that is (and this place is not so full of anarchists)
My first choice would be to fund the government by donations. If you think the state is all that and a bag of chips, why do you need to be threatened to pay up? It’s kind of like a nation that has to force people to serve in its military is probably not worth fighting for.
My second choice would be a head tax on able-bodied adults. If for some reason they can’t pay, they can work it off by picking up trash or whatever.
The bottom line is the reason there are so many kinds of taxes often applied simultaneously is because the rulers want the money and the envious want to see the rich pulled down.
Those who are saying that you are paying the government for protection, with your property taxes, are correct. The distinction I want to make is that the entity you are being protected from, is them.
Sure, the extortion you give Big Tony is primarily to keep Big Tony from taking your shit, but Big Tony does keep Moe Greene and Chalky White from muscling in.
Look you like having fingers and working legs doncha? So pay the good people
I always smile when writing the check to the county landlord of the land I “own”.
I would go with either a flat fee or a VAT (only), for different reasons.
Government is as big as it is because taxes are hidden and not everyone pays them. And IF the only legitimate function of government is to protect individual rights and everyone has equal rights, people should pay an equal portion for that protection. If you run such a government on $1T/year, every man, woman and child pays 1/310,000,000th of that. About $3225 per year.
Now everyone sees their obligation and the cost is spread equally. No one gets bennies at the expense of another. AND it has the added benefit of keeping government small as any increase impacts the poor the most. Still theft, but equal theft.
——
I could live with a VAT. It’s still progressive as the rich will pay more for government than the poor because they buy more/better stuff, but at least spending increases impact everyone, which may inhibit the growth of government. It also gives the tax is theft people an option to not pay as much…albeit a poor option.
——
A property tax is probably more fair. Everyone pays, but it’s a hidden tax, so everyone doesn’t realize they pay. Meaning the guy with no property will vote to raise taxes (grow government) because he thinks the property owner is picking up the tab. (Not the case, of course) Property tax, being hidden, provides little incentive to keep government small.
If you have a mortgage, It gets hidden in your escrow, sure. But you still know it’s there when they hit you with a big increase.
You’re also paying it if you’re paying rent. The only difference is, if you stop paying it as the owner, you get thrown out on the street. If your landlord stops paying it, then you get thrown out on the street depending on what the new owner does.
Flat fee with the option to allot it to given services actuall provided at the behest of the taxpayer is as close as I can see to equitable. Yes, the government has a legitimate function in defense and contract adjudication. Torts and contract enforcements can be financed by usage fees (loser pays). Distributed services like defense will require a distributed billing.
The part with hidden taxes I noticed how certain governments around the world split various payroll taxes in the employees share and the employers share and many employees think they are not the ones being taxed. I always found this mind blowing. How can one not understand the employer only cares about the total sum of many leaving his account, the employee the total sum of money they get. The difference is tax. If you split it in employer’s share employee’s share and tooth fairy’s share makes no difference.
No one gets bennies at the expense of another.
You just take all the fun right out of a democratic republic, don’t you?
I try.
I believe in fee-for-service government, insofar as it is practical. The Navy, for example, should be funded by port fees, since their presumptive function is to provide security for goods and travellers on the high seas. Roads should be paid for with fuel taxes. Und so weiter.
Imposing taxes on accumulated wealth is a nonstarter in P Brooks -topia.
As far as income taxes go, I am less doctrinaire than many, since I consider a tax on income as it is earned to be a transaction tax on labor (labor and knowledge, to be more accurate). I see no reason to believe a transaction tax on the purchase of labor is any different than a transaction tax on the purchase of dog food.
Let us say I design, fabricate and install a spiral stairway, for which I am handsomely compensated. Included in this end product is my knowledge and experience. How and why should we differentiate this transaction from an attorney or accountant who sits at a desk and incorporates no significant raw material but his own knowledge into his end product? Who should pay more?
I’d rather not have to give the government detailed accounts of my income. Sale tax on goods can be more privacy friendly as coffee does not care about its cost.
I watched the goofy SJW Buzzfeed video in the links thread. It was only a little less idiotic than this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziO8YiTZB5E
My first choice would be to fund the government by donations. If you think the state is all that and a bag of chips, why do you need to be threatened to pay up?
Yes. There is an address where one may send “Gifts to the Treasury”. Until the jabbering assholes from Warren Buffett to the retired teacher down at the end of the bar shows me a cancelled check, they can all just STFU.
Public goods are non-exclusive – thus there are fundamental problems to the effective and efficient provision thereof. That’s why govt is more than a charitable effort. Of course Mr. Brooks’ point applies, preferably with the impact of a baseball bat to the forehead, to all of those who complain that they aren’t taxed enough.
Paying rent to keep what’s yours seems like a terrible plan. It discourages ownership and eventually results in the government owning everything and searching for alternatives so it can collect what it “needs” to operate. And that means you end up with another tax to supplement it. And when that starts bringing in diminishing returns, they seek another one out.
Sorry, I just don’t like the concept of never really owning the place you reside in.
I would be happiest with tariffs, tolls and use fees. My second option would be a consumption tax tied to an amendment capping the rate, forbidding any other taxes and implementing a balanced budget.
I would also like ten million dollars. And I’m more likely to see it that my tax plan put into practice.
Sorry, I just don’t like the concept of never really owning the place you reside in.
Ownership is the govt recognition and enforcement of the title – the document (and that is all it is) that vests your “ownership”. And you pay for that. How is that not fee for service?
It’s a fee. Once paid, that’s it. That’s loads different than a scheme where you must pay them every single year for the right to maintain what you’ve bought.
They just want to make sure you still want it, that’s all. The cost for reminding you is kinda steep, though.
Ownership is the govt recognition and enforcement of the title
No, that’s licensure. You’re no less married just because you didn’t get a marriage license. Similarly, you’re no less the true owner of property simply because you didn’t get a title drawn up by the government. Your legal remedies may be affected by your lack of governmental licensure, but I thought us libertarians were a little less interested in “it is because the government says it is” arguments.
What is a “true owner of property”? Land is only yours as long as you can hold on to it, and that requires force. Force is what puts claim to ‘your land’. Above Suthenboy and Ted S talk about acreage their families own, if the US government collapses Wednesday afternoon, do you really think they will still ‘own’ that land come Thursday morning? If so, why?and more importantly how will they secure that ownership?
Great Moments in Euphemisms
from wiki
I’ve heard “instant sunshine” as a gallows-humour euphemism for setting off the big one, but never knew there was any official connection.
I would also like ten million dollars.
Just don’t forget to declare it.
I’m a proponent of the single gland tax.
You know who else was said to have had a single gland?
To convince me of the value of any kind of tax you first have to point out those good things that are both in real demand and that cannot be done through voluntary means. Whether that means a for-profit business, some sort of co-op, a charity scheme or even just some sort of ad-hoc we’ll-make-it-up-as-we-go type thing if it can be done without government then that’s the only ethical way to do it.
So show me the good things that only government can do.
This is rather off-topic, but I think that, were I going to effect a “reparations” scheme, I would do it by suspending all income taxes for African-American individuals, and for any firm that is majority-owned by African-Americans.
In a series of surprise announcements today Exxon, GE, Wal-Mart………
*Shrug*
Exactly so. If we are going to give special privileges, then let it be by incentivizing productive activities.
….”had converted all their shares into a jointly-held conglomerate overseen by BET”
It would be interesting to see “progressives” react to this proposal. On one hand, they love to give handouts and pretend to be compassionate towards African-Americans. On the other hand, it would force them to admit that lower taxes or no taxes will make people more prosperous, and then they’re faced with the question of why taxes shouldn’t be lowered for the entire population.
As an aside, have you ever pondered how screwy it is to think that all white people should be made to pay reparations to all black people?
1. In the era of slavery, people who actually owned slaves were a very small percentage of the population.
2. Freed black people sometimes owned slaves.
3. The majority of white people in America today are descended from immigrant waves from Europe that occurred long after slavery had ended.
4. At least some black people in America today are descended from people who came here after slavery was over.
Instead of taxing land, how about taxing the *use* of land?
Then there’d be a Single Land Use Tax, or SLUT.
“Honey, did you remember to pay the SLUT?”
Death and SLUT.
Makes the concept of easement sound really, really dirty.
I’m becoming more and more skeptical of the “no deadweight loss” claim of SLT’ers the more I think about it. I’m not entirely convinced that there aren’t second order issues here.
Specifically, I think that the supply curve will move in response to the tax, resulting in Harberger’s triangle (more like trapezoid) deadweight loss.
Hopefully somebody with an understanding of economics can explain whether or not I’m correct on this.